Talk:Dark academia

news article on this

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11779074

Criticism section

The whole section is a mess, but the accusation that "The Western canon of literary classics that the subculture of dark academia draws from has been historically incorporated into university teachings to support scientific racism" is a particular gem. Particularly bold is that it's not even being inserted as a quotation but just as an objective truth fit for wear on an encyclopedia. Almost all citations in the section link to opinion pieces of obscure blogs and even a student newspaper. While I would personally consider having the entire section removed since the content reads more as 'culture war' than substantive information that has long term value, any kind of improvement would be better than what is currently there.94.157.236.103 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to remove that statement in particular, just because it was (in my opinion) a deliberately misleading connection. Racism =! classical literature no matter how it's been abused. Also, it's got little to do with the article, since the classics are at worst the parent of these racist university policies and dark academia. The children don't have to interpret their source material the same way at all. I'm not sure how my edit will be received but it might open progressive dialogue. 31.205.129.67 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm understanding. The citations you take issue with are from Her Campus, Tor, The Daily California, the french site, and Book Riot?

I'm not sure about the French one, but the rest are reputable sources for criticism. Her Campus is a national college newspaper site, Tor is under Tor Publishing - the famous SFF/Horror imprint, I don't know much about the college page in question but to downplay it as a "student paper" especially given entries relevance is misguided, and BookRiot is for educators and librarians. Can't speak to the French one because I'm not familiar with that particular international publication.

Maybe elaborate who is saying this "students journalists, contemporary writers, etc" have said X. You can use some literary examples since they're been several dark academia novels published the last 4 years that address these issues (in text and in interviews). Even if it's believe to be a part of the "culture war" stuff, it has made it's way into the text warranting the inclusion of that within the article. Then keep the rest down the same since that is from researchers.

A bigger issue I think is that this section should be split in two since there is so much written about the explosion in the 2020s. Also the conversations about money and college are ever evolving so I forsee the next 2-5 years this section being expanded upon. Can't make a section on a hunch, but the info is already in there to warrant it's place. Alyssa Art (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, what a hilarious sentence to read. Reduce it down to the very basics. DarkyDu (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole section and ""sources"" reek of wokeism, but that's the 2020s for you. These people are hellbent on destroying Western civilization and won't stop until it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.175.32 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, cherry-picking some opinion pieces doesn't seem particularly objective or substantive. --194.75.9.66 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also agree. This is a strongly biased criticism section and the sources are all heavily biased except one, maybe two. This section needs a strong rework and perhaps a source that doesn't come from a heavily biased university newspaper, for which no qualifications are often necessary to write for them. 129.215.231.39 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All criticism is going to be biased - that is the point of a criticism section. Are you familiar with the requirements to work at this newspaper or the work/education background of the editorial staff?

I ask because all colleges are different. I worked at a college newspaper in my undergrad and in grad school (came in as a visual person that ended up writing), and the requirements to get something published were very high. Initially you had to pass the GSP and take several classes to even take the course to be on the paper and while they relaxed the requirements to get voices from across campus (like STEM and business students) - they quality was still maintained. It just meant more rounds of edits and redrafts. Alyssa Art (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This criticism section is complete bogus. Needs a COMPLETE rework in my opinion. 129.215.231.173 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I invite you to find appropriate references and rewrite it yourself. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that it’s not in the least bit clear what the actual objection to the section is - and much more importantly, what sort of changes would supposedly be necessary for the tags to be removed. Screeds about the “section [being] complete bogus”, or simply not agreeing with the criticisms being noted are less than useless for the purposes of this discussion.

For anything to be fixed, it needs to clearly be nailed down what actual issue or issues are. The only only substantive issue that stands out to me would be undue weight. It does seem a little odd that a fairly brief article about a vague and minor social media trend would spend quite so many words detailing every published thinkpiece about it (though indeed the fact that there are so many is notable in itself). The prose itself is likewise a little bloated. I can see how the section could be improved by condensing it a little, and in the process sharpening up the writing; if others thought similarly then I’d be happy to do it myself. Conversely, however, the fact that other users merely disagree with the criticisms detailed isn’t grounds for not including them. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

In light of subsequent edits to the section, resulting in the absence of factual inaccuracies or disputed facts, and no clear NPOV issues, I have removed the NPOV and factual inaccuracy tags in the reception section. This is not to say that the section does not need any more work; certainly, if there are any substantive published pieces responding to some of the criticisms noted, they would be worth including. There could potentially be a discussion to be had about undue weight (WP:WEIGHT), but that should involve clearly laying out how the section would fit that criteria, and what concrete changes might be necessary. However, given the sheer number of relevant articles cited here, I don't believe it needs an undue weight tag. I would further remind editors that an encyclopedia does not construct arguments or conduct original research - it amalgamates sourced facts (including, where relevant, the fact that particular opinions & arguments have been expressed). It is not "balance" to personally construct counterarguments to opinions the article mentions. If one takes issue with the claims which an article reports on, then that is an issue one takes up with a newspaper or opinion site. One's personal views (on topics other than strategies and policies for editing Wikipedia) have no relevance here. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of TikTok stats

So here's the deal with the rising popularity dark academia. It first appeared on Tumblr back in 2014, but for years only had slow organic growth. It got a boost on Insta in 2017 but even that did little to capture new eyes not already interested in the aesthetic. While interest even on Tumblr did begin to grow quite rapidly from Q3 2019, dark accademia only enjoyed viral growth thanks to TikTok in the first year of the pandemic. Dark accademia is a popular fashion trend, and it's of encyclopaedic interest to include easy to understand quantitative data on its popularity. Especially when that data focuses on the very platform that made the aesthetic so well known.

Speaking more generally, I'd strongly disagree with the recent edit summary that "One could ... insert views-per-Tiktok-hashtag for every article - it would not, however, be of any use to said articles." TikTok stats would in fact be very useful the subset of articles dealing with current youth trends. TikTok is now way more popular than Facebook for Gen Z and is indispensable for understanding much contemporary youth culture. This is why journalistic sources record popularity with tiktok hashtag (as per sources just removed) and it's increasingly common practice in contemporary social science. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts by MrOllie

@MrOllie: Please explain your revert. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I was reverting blatant POV pushing. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: What "blatant POV pushing"? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)