Talk:Identity politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Updating the critiques of identity politics[edit]

The content on this page summarizing and characterizing the criticisms of identity politics was narrow and academic and needed updating with the current and latest criticisms found in mainstream political criticism and reporting following the 2016 election cycle. My additions are aimed at doing that, with citation to the work of credible contemporary political commentators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense (talkcontribs) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's Observer newspaper has something on this in the context of Generation Identity in the UK[edit]

It's summarised in The Guardian: Infiltrator exposes Generation Identity UK’s march towards extreme far right[1] - the UK GI party has been expelled from the wider movement and is discussing a merge with For Britain. I've also found Draft:Generation Identity United Kingdom and Éire. --Doug Weller talk 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopkins[edit]

@Spoonydude84 and Grayfell: I also like the Hopkins quote. Can we include some portion of it? Some other sections also have quotes. -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but since this isn't a vote, why would liking it matter? This quote seems completely arbitrary and disproportionate based on coverage.
So why is CJ Hopkins' opinion encyclopedically significant, and why is this article the place for his opinion? Why would this quote be highlighted out of all he has written? How is this different from cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective?
Nothing about the CJ Hopkins article (which has its own problems) suggests any special expertise in this topic, and doesn't describe him as a journalist at all. So we have to compare this to similar content by other playwrights/satirists/etc. There have been thousands and thousands of columns, and blogs, and op-eds, and similar mocking some idiosyncratic definition of "identity politics". Many of these have been written by ostensibly noteworthy people. This isn't Wikiquote, and we neither can nor should attempt to include all relevant quotes, so this one seems basically useless. If there is some reliable source commenting on why Hopkins take is significant, let's see it.
As for other quotes, that's a good point. Some are framed as historically relevant, or cite secondary sources which emphasize these quotes. The Owen Jones quote is from a book specifically about an aspect of identity politics which had editorial oversight and received some positive critical attention, indicating that it's at least arguable a WP:RS. The same cannot be said of the Hopkins quote.
I would also argue that the Brendan O'Neill should also be removed. While the source is slightly more clearly notable, it's not obvious why this opinion warrants special attention. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hopkins is a satirist writing in a website known for conspiracy stuff and Russian propaganda. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I like the quote and think it should stay on the Identity politics page. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Considering CJ Hopkins has his very own Wikipedi page, I think that makes him notabale. Is there any exact evidence that he's writing for Russian propaganda? In the modern age I've seen alot of smearing of people without proving exact evidence that they are "russian propagandist." I aslo see nothing related to Russia at all in this particular quote. Also, CJ Hopkins articles appear on many websites, as his Wikipedia article states. I've found 4 different websites that this particular quote has come from.Spoonydude84 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't matter that you personally like it. This isn't a popularity contest.
It doesn't appear that any of those outlets are reliable. The first two I found were Unz Review and Zero Hedge, both of which have histories of publishing WP:FRINGE material, including extremist conspiracy theories. This is another indicator that this is just another random, barely notable person's irrelevant personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've found it on Offguardian, Dissent voice, Greanville post, Radio free and Consent Factory. Just because his articles appear on certain websites doesn't mean he fully endorses all the viewpoints of said website. And at the end of the quote, obviously his name shows up. It will be up to Wikipedia users wether to trust CJ Hopkins or not. Spoonydude84 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you likely found them because Offguardian, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, Radiofree.org are all listed on his website. None of this are significant. Consent Factory is another of Hopkins' own websites, because this was basically a blog-post. He wrote a blog post a year ago, and, as far as I can see, almost nobody else seems to have commented on it at all, other then random IPs who keep adding it to this Wikipedia page. That's not a sign that this is a major perspective which needs to be crammed into the article.
So again, why would this obscure quote, from this obscure playwright, belong in this article? Hundreds, if not thousands, of equally notable people have written about identity politics. Why this one and not any of those, and where do we draw the line? Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
His works have been reviewed by publications such as "The Guardian", "Metro" "The Herald", and others https://cjhopkins.com/stage-plays/horse-country/ with good reviews. Do you consider that to still be obscure? The "Critiques of identity politics" section has no current quotes. Spoonydude84 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Good for him, I guess. That is completely irrelevant, and that doesn't answer my question. There are full-length academic books about comedy or satire and identity politics (ISBN 978-3-319-90506-8, as an arbitrary example). There are many, many people who have written about this topic and who are notable for a variety of reasons. Many of them are undeniably more notable than Hopkins, and many of them are notable as experts on politics or social sciences. Why is this one arbitrarily selected quote, from an obscure playwright, so special it belongs and not any of those other quotes? Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Hopkins doesn't need to be world-famous, he's just a satirist whose views on this topic are published in places like Counterpunch[2], The American Conservative[3], and Zero Hedge[4]: all popular and notable platforms that are somewhere in the orbit of the American right. Hopkins's criticisms are published by notable sources, showing they're notable themselves.
Despite this Grayfell, in your reply to my request that we include some portion of the quote, you wrote that this would be completely arbitrary and disproportionate. It is surely not completely arbitrary, if the word "completely" has any meaning: Hopkins' commentary has been published elsewhere, and is very relevant to the "criticism" section of this page. It is unclear what you mean by "disproportionate," since I effectively asked you how much quote would be reasonable, in your view. Or are you saying that one sentence from Hopkins would be disproportionate? If so, what are the voices critical of identity politics that deserve a greater proportion in that section?
You've also written that quoting Hopkins would be cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective. If you can demonstrate that a more complete quote from Hopkins shows us that the proposed text significantly distorts the full meaning of his words, that would reveal cherry-picking. However, removing Hopkins' criticism from a "criticism" section of this page would appear to cherry-pick notable ideas out of the article. Like you I also support adding more academic sources to this article, but I don't think that removing Hopkins will help you with that work which needs to be done.
I do think some part of the quote should be included, based on the sources linked above. The whole thing is too long for this article. And Spoonydude84 if you happen to be adding the quote back in as an IP, that is very frowned upon here for multiple reasons: WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. I don't know if you're doing that, but don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────I have also raised related WP:SPA and WP:COI concerns at Talk:CJ Hopkins, which has overlapping editing patterns. The travelling IP addresses may or may not be related, but I think it is at least plausible they are Hopkins himself, based on this history. I don't know (or really care) whether or not Hopkins meets WP:NBIO, but we should be basing our assumptions about this person's importance on reliable, independent sources, same as always.

Nobody is denying that Hopkins exists, or that he has a Wikipedia article, or that he has expressed opinions about identity politics. This can be said about thousands of people. If the purpose of this quote was to indicate a notable criticism of the concept, this is a completely arbitrary way to do that, because there are thousands of possible sources for this topic. Yet again, why is this quote significant?

As for cherry-picking, the quote was chopped-up. It is not a contiguous quote, but samples from multiple disconnected paragraphs devoid of context. This is a very clear form of editorializing which violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV. The essay was long (by Hopkins own admission) and choosing any one "quote" (or collection of different quotes, in this case) based only on the essay itself is subjective. If you think it's a fair summary of his point, so be it, but that's based only on your own opinion. If someone else comes along and said "this only makes sense if we include this part of the paragraph in the middle" there's no basis for disputing that, is there? Or someone like me can come along and say "this seems pointlessly sarcastic and self-indulgent, and doesn't belong at all" and there's no basis for disputing that, either. Why these quotes, and not some other selection?

These other outlets for the same source are mostly opinion outlets with limited editorial oversight. Hopkins' columns are sometimes re-published in some fringe outlets without modification. This is not a sign that this perspective is significant. An IP address chose the quote and added it because they liked it, but that's not a good enough reason for a neutral encyclopedia. If there is some reason to think this perspective is important, a better source can surely be found. Then, it would be much better to summarize in our own words, per MOS:QUOTE. If the quote is the best example of this perspective, a secondary source should be found which describes Hopkins take as useful, or significant, or even comments on it to say how wrong it is. Otherwise, who cares, and why should readers care? Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell on the one hand, I think you're engaging in some all-or-nothing thinking. We've already shown above that the Hopkins' views on IP have some online media presence, and for this reason could be given space in this article. On the other hand, given your concerns that Hopkins' views are being misrepresented, and your strenuous objection to use of Hokpins when there is no overwhelming need to do so, I'll defer for now. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the opposition to the inclusion in the article of a perspective that is dismissive of the idea of "identity". Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not the point, and presenting it that way is loaded and leading. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Why wouldn't this particular commentary about "identity politics" be welcome? You say "why is this article the place for his opinion?" It is appropriate for inclusion because it is squarely on the topic of this article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've already explained all of this multiple times, so taking one of my comments out of context and asking loaded, misleading questions about that comment isn't productive. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The quote is relevant for this article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. 207.107.159.66 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. Why is it relevant? Which quote? As I said, the "quote" which was added was a chopped-up combination of several different parts of a longer article. This violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV, so this specific combination of quotes cannot be added to the article as it is. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In some cases, satirical responses to political issues may be appropriate, but the argument here for inclusion seem based on trying to present this satire as serious commentary; that is a flawed argument and lacks transparency. The quote itself is redundant and wordy, taking forever to get to the point. This is fine for the entertainment outlets he writes for, but not for an encyclopedia. Any points it makes are already addressed by others in the article. If Hopkins' satirical responses are notable enough to be mentioned at all, and I'm not convinced they are, a brief reference to his writing satire would be more than enough. I don't think he needs to be mentioned. Actually, per Doug's points, that's a hard no. - CorbieVreccan 01:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I also concur that we may well have some WP:LOUTSOCK issues here. - CorbieVreccan 01:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with several of you. We should not refrain from ridiculing the subject of our article, and none do it better than CJ Hopkins, or at least none already in our article. The source, Who Doesn’t Love Identity Politics? by CJ Hopkins, does an excellent job of demolishing the concept of "identity politics". There is no reason that I know of that Wikipedia should refrain from including an excerpt from a scathing critique of the subject of our article. This could beneficially lead to readers visiting the CJ Hopkins essay. We could do worse than including a quote such as "Who doesn’t love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia … everybody loves identity politics." (Other excerpted quotes are also possible.) It does a good job at suggesting the differing points on the spectrum of politics that share the concept of "identity politics" and therefore how it may be a slippery slope and an unproductive "lens" through which to view politics. I think our aim is to present all facets of an issue. I think CJ Hopkins views identity politics as tantamount to a delusional "lens" through which to view political alliances. That is a perspective that warrants inclusion in our article. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
All he is saying is that that elites encourage identity politics as an alternative to class politics. That's already stated in the article and there is no need for a lengthy quote. TFD (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
[Grayfell] "Again, it doesn't matter that you personally like it. This isn't a popularity contest.
"It doesn't appear that any of those outlets are reliable. The first two I found were Unz Review and Zero Hedge, both of which have histories of publishing WP:FRINGE material, including extremist conspiracy theories. This is another indicator that this is just another random, barely notable person's irrelevant personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)"

Hopkins trying to influence the article[edit]

This[5] has been republished a number of places and has pretty clearly inspired people to come here and to his article, in part to attack an editor. Note that I've removed one such attack by an IP at the end of the last section. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller—an article on science or math or physics or astronomy is held to standards of factuality. An article on "Identity politics" is held to standards of quality and relevance. High quality lampooning of the subject of an article on "Identity politics" should really be considered for inclusion. "Identity politics" is essentially racism expanded beyond race. It is a naturally occurring human tendency and we all defend it to an extent. But it is entirely relevant for someone to come along and lampoon the concept for what it is. CJ Hopkins has not made a faux pas when he writes "The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it." The essay by CJ Hopkins is clearly relevant to the topic of the article. The question is why anyone would be arguing to keep reference to it out. A quote from the essay is capable of speaking for itself. The title itself is interesting in the context of this article: "Who Doesn’t Love Identity Politics?" We should be choosing which excerpt to include. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that they do not want that quote on this article. Look at the number of admins that have jumped in on this. Over literally one quote. And you got the infamous Phillip Cross that has shown up. Alternative media has increasingly become critical of Wikipedia over the past couple of years. It's pretty obvious they're protecting the billionaire/ruling class. Kissing up to power is all this is. Nothing really can be done, as google search has a damn near-monopoly all over the planet. And when people google search, damn near always Wikipedia shows up at the top. 83.209.103.81 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)