Talk:Karen (slang)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Spelling error: Change "and the robotic wife of Plankton fron the TV show" to "and the robotic wife of Plankton from the TV show" 165.225.217.32 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Karen aka "Gretchen", "Big Gretch", and "That Woman from Michigan"

What is the relationship with Gretchen Whitmer ? --92.184.104.48 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's immaturity from people who really don't like Whitmer, and nothing more. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"One Source" twinkle tag

@Fuzheado: Hey, flagging that I removed your One Source tag that you applied with Twinkle. Although I can see rational arguments about notability (which I do think it passes GNG), I think it's fairly clear from the plethora of sources that are listed here that the tag doesn't apply. Feel free to revert if you disagree, but it seemed like an off-kilter tag to me. Nomader (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nomader: Thanks for the note. I defintely think it's notable, but the origins and background are completely from one source, which is why I added it. I've modified it to be "One source section." -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: My mistake on removing the section version-- I didn't realize it was a different template. Completely agree here. Nomader (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

relevance?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

lol wikipedia is really going there with ridiculously trendy things to make an article of? is this even a thing that will still be relevant in six months? Wikidude10000 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel inclined to agree, somewhat. This article probably serves better as one for Know Your Meme, but then if we were to do that, we'd have to apply the same rule to OK Boomer, Bye, Felicia, and so on. I suppose the real big issue making sure the article is clean and not filled with obscure jargon. -- Tytrox (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the real issue is whether any random attack on women by disgruntled losers on the internet deserves a wikipedia page. Watch: the next one and the next one and the next one will all get pages too, and because we cannot possibly leave out a page for "OK Boomer" we're apparently stuck with all the "clever" insults made up by misogynists. Peezy1001 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

^ Ok Karen.

Any random attack on women? Karen isn't an attack on women. It's a well defined stereotype that almost anyone in the service industry recognizes. Well worth a wikipedia-page. Dontirri (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now the place for bigots to share "well-defined stereotypes"? Your anecdotal claims about "everyone" using the term is irrelevant. It's an attack on women by assholes and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Peezy1001 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Whadya wanna do? Speak to the manager? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.189.55 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Educate me: Why is Karen a "random attack on women"? The simple fact that it is well defined logically removes the random-part of it atleast.

Also, do you also have a problem with Becky and Trixie? They are found on the see also-section.

How about Chad and Kyle? Or is a "random attack on men" fine by your eyes?

Since Wikipedia strives for unbiasedness, if Karen is removed, so should all those mentioned. Dontirri (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peezy1001: Just put up a page deletion nomination up and be done with it. Your contemptuous behaviour here is wanting. -- Tytrox (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well. That settles it. I put up a nomination for deletion, and it was unanimously ruled to keep it. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

original research

I've gone through the first few paragraphs and removed a ton of what appeared to be original research. Article needs further work. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Finished going through it to rem OR. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Remove the term “racist”. Even in the urban dictionary it states nothing about racist. 77.45.159.13 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This literally says that "Karen" is a stand-in for white entitlement, and then gives an example of a racist Karen in the very first sentence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

I don’t believe Karen qualifies as an ethnic slur. The ethnicity is not the thing being referred to, but the actions and behaviour of the person being referred to are. Under the ‘ethnic slur’ page it gives the example of Gringo which is based on their ethnicity being Latin American. A Karen is a woman who is behaving in an obnoxious way, ethnicity is not involved. 82.15.5.222 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It conflates the "whiteness" of Karens with her obnoxiousness. If somebody called you the N word, and then said "hey, I'm not being racist, I'm using a word that refers to STUPID unruly blacks, not all black people!" That wouldn't fly, would it?

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See the section just above. Anyway this seems controversial enough that proper consensus would need to be established. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Term used for someone who is racist?

I see multiple references in the article where the term "Karen" is used for someone discriminating or being racist against African Americans, but historically this does not seem commonplace. This article should reflect actual usage of the term on the internet. Right now the balance does not seem correct. The "Know your meme" page does not focus on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B054:6B81:14F5:DC46:525D:7E31 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's confusing, because it's a slang term with two distinct meanings that only slightly overlap. The main use on the Internet seems to be the stereotype of an over-entitled middle-aged woman who wants to 'speak to the manager', but the alternate meaning of 'racist white woman' seems to be growing in popularity lately. Maybe it would be better being split into two articles? Robofish (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the fact that something “historically seems commonplace” or that another website doesn't describe it in the same way isn’t enough to justify changing something in an article due to our No original research and Verifiability policies. If you would like to suggest a change, consider backing it up with reliable sources that detail the term’s actual usage on the internet. MrSwagger21 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Many videos show Middle Aged Women throwing a tantrum but not all of them are according the “white / racist” stereotype. Actually many show African American women requesting the “Corporate Number”, as they have learned that the manager is never available when they ask to speak with him. PaoloMudanda (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone source a use of "Karen" by the black community that doesn't originate back to Gwen Snyder's tweet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.116.112 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

race

this term has absolutely nothing to do with race. this is just the latest attempt to make everything about race in light of the recent protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk • contribs)

That is not what the most reliable references say. Britishfinance (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence is misleading

The opening paragraph is misleading. A Karen is always a woman, not just a "person" but a white woman--always. Efforts to change this to reflect the gender of a Karen are repeatedly rolled back to "person" as if to signify that men can be Karens; men aren't Karens just as women are never "Kyles" or "incels" or "Chads." Attempting to neutralize the femaleness and whiteness of Karens is the ultimate Karen maneuver. Eyes down, human. (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me add: not “always white” as there are many videos on the web with African American women throwing tantrums and/or urging to talk with the manager or to have the Corporate Number to file a complaint. PaoloMudanda (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

PaoloMudanda, we need coverage of it in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Right now what we have are sources saying it's used to refer to white women. The videos constitute WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which we can't use. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Take a look of any of the “Ultimate Public Freakout Compilation” on YouTube: have fun watching PaoloMudanda (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Karens are invariably white, entitled women using their privilege and playing their woman card when calling the cops (damsel in distress feigning fear of assault by an ‘uppity’ black man). This is a strategy used to intimidate or coerce someone who is black, poor, foreign or otherwise disadvantaged. If you're genuinely interested, there's plenty of examples from various media outlets, including the latest incarnation: Behold the Permit Karen. () — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.51.159 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I see your point. How would you then call the overly aggressive (also black) woman that throws a tantrum in a store, filming the employees threatening to call corporate ? PaoloMudanda (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To me that’s a Karen using her customer privilege to threaten store employees; anyway of that’s not a Karen because Karens are invariably white, then you are welcome to suggest a name. PaoloMudanda (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

What the lady in Central Park did was unthinkable - but to begin to associate the name Karen with such actions is, in my opinion, unfair to the other 1 million+ people named Karen who live in the U.S. alone.

This very movement is about not unfairly grouping people. . . Let's not do so in this way either. 67.240.250.245 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Slur

The cited source for calling this term a slur is a dictionary definition that does not mention the term in any way whatsoever. I also believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels would apply here. There are a number of other reasons why this term should not be described in this article as a slur, as well. If there are no objections, I'm going to revert it. Xaphnir (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It plainly is a slur, in the sense of being a derogatory or pejorative term. No one thinks this is a complimentary thing to call someone. Robofish (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Terms must be complimentary or they’re slurs, got it. Qadm (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should address criticism that the Karen meme is really just misogyny disguised as something else. Some writers have disagreed (e.g. Washington Post) but this debate should be openly acknowledged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.66.103 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

please change "Karen is a pejorative term" to "Karen is a racist pejorative term" . 70.120.59.90 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)  Not done We need a reliable source discussing this —valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

You should add that this is a RACIST pejorative. It clearly is. To my knowledge, there is no societally accepted-as-appropriate insult that can be hurled at persons of color. 70.120.59.90 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done needs an RS —valereee (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

reply to Drmom5

Hey, Drmom5! I'd prefer to discuss the article here rather than via email. The anti-vaccination belief is cited in the article section (it doesn't need to also be cited in the lede), but I've added a direct citation to that phrasing in the section. I changed the phrasing in the lede to 'anti-vaccination belief', I agree that 'anti-vaxxer' is a pejorative term for that belief and doesn't belong in the article. I am not making any argument about people who have any particular beliefs about vaccines, and I don't appreciate being called names or told that I support hate speech via email. —valereee (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct way to respond here.

You simply have no facts that support an equation of vaccine skepticism with Karenism. It's editorializing. It's also encouraging ongoing attacks on people who choose not to vaccinate. You have no idea the number of pro-vaxxers who hurl insults and threats at us. They range from, "If you come near me, I will punch you," to "I hope your child dies from measles." (That doesn't happen, BTW.) By lumping us in with another hated minority, you are endorsing threats against us. Currently, big pharmas astroturfing has extended to vaccine commercials in TV shows as well as fake bloggers and recaptioning drug reaction photos so it appears that the victim has a disease which he does not. (Even NBC was caught faking mealses photos.) I would be happy to share real science with you but I don't have enough years left in my life to beat my head on a brick wall of 30 years of pharma lies.

And you also need to support your bobbed haircut theory. I have yet to see a "Karen" that doesn't have long hair. It sounds as if you are implying that Karens are lesbians. Citation needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmom5 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmom5, yes, that's how! We do have citations for the vaccine stereotype for Karen; here's one,, which is provided in the second para of the Meaning and Use section. We also have multiple citations for the bob haircut, which is probably the most common stereotype in the meme. In fact both the bob haircut and the vaccine stance are mentioned in the headline of that article. This is not editorializing, it's reporting what reliable sources have said. That's what Wikipedia does: we read what reliable sources are saying about a subject, and then we summarize those sources. If you are seeing reliable sources saying vaccine skepticism isn't part of the Karen stereotype, we can include that information.

I'm so sorry anyone would say they hope your child dies, that's terrible. Some people can be so awful to one another when they disagree about something. —valereee (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Karen

The meaning of the name karen is; the complainer and the assaluted. Romes 04 (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Country of origin / use?

Is this a USA slang term? As an Australian speaker of English this term is not used there. Karen is just a normal first name. 49.178.45.209 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this term mostly applies to the United States. Pf1127 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The term/category/name Karen is by no means used throughout the "Western World" as pejorative. Can we limit "Western World" to "English speaking world" - as a maximum? Or probably even to the US only? This also refers to the misleading opening sentence ...

Sorry, you guys are behind on the news: In Aussie, in late July 2020 there has been a widely reported news story (it was in the NZ news too) of the "Bunnings Karen", an anti-masker in Melbourne who called the police when she was denied entrance to the Bunnings store because she would not wear a mask. Then shortly after that a "Bunning Karen 2.0" was in the news. So the terms seems to be spreading, regardless of efforts to stop its spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.82.143 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin

The term 'Karen' is described in the Origin section of having originated "describe white women who tattle on Black kids' lemonade stands". This line can be traced almost word for word back to unsubstantiated claim made in a twitter post by Gwen Snyder (see source [2]). While the archetype of a racist white woman is undoubtedly quite old, as far as I can tell most sources (such as source [5]) describe the convergence of this archetype with the word 'Karen' to be a relatively recent phenomenon. (see this BBC article on the use of the term [1]).

The origins of the term on Reddit should be moved to the beginning of the Origin section since they are the first chronological evidence of the term 'Karen' being adapted. Then the section should describe how the term came to describe racist white women who use their privilege against Black people.

Flameoguy (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think the history of the term (from Miss Ann > Becky > Karen) is more important. —valereee (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Perjorative debate

Why there is a need to make a slang be a subject of crime? There is no impartiality, and the article is bringing an average meme to a "act of racism and misoginy that we hope to be banned".

Neoliberalism is hated by both democrats and dictators; so, is correct "do not criticize neoliberalism", because bad people uses it for legitimate the evil? The use by mysoginistics groups, do not invalidate the critics that, according some black people, are found on middle-class white woman. So, the fight against this average meme, is needless. It's just a steriotypical meme, that obviously is not based on ressearchs or studies, but only a meme.

Imagine a page about the term "brocialism" is written as "a perjorative term about male socialists by women; the term could be used by nazis and other hate groups; there are bills that claim for a ban of the term, and some socialists claim for freedom of thought". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsolino (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nelsolino, I'm not sure what you're saying should be changed? —valereee (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

About other terms

The term brocialist is used several times by some feminists against men that support trans rights or some law that a feminist disagree. The wikitionary states: "A male socialist or progressive who downplays women's issues or displays a macho attitude".... the vast majority of these feminists are of white skin.... so, is not weird that the same feminists are criticising the usage of a term popularizated by black-american people? Even in pages about female sex-tourism, there are more neutrality, and the sex-tourism is done by white-skin women; there is something weird here. I am a afro-brazilian man, and here, there are no such a useless debate in the portuguese version.

I am quitting from edition from the english one, for a undetermined time, because I can't see imparciality about mistakes commited by black people.

Nelsolino.

Again, not sure what you're asking for? —valereee (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bad english. I ask for allow editions that show arguments that don't agree with the term as a form of racism or mysoginy; i remove the legislation section, because this legislation will never pass, so, is unecessary and seems like something bad that is a discussion waiting for a ban.

I ask to only keep the bad usage by mysoginists in the article and the reddit mysoginistics posts in a section, as a add-on of the meme. Julie Bindel (and the legislation) are not criticizing only the bad use by mytsoginists, but also all the memes, as "reverse racism". The meme users are not using it for mysoginists reasons, but she want criticism all the posts. It's like a dictator criticizes the neoliberalism and the neoliberalism article only focusing in quote dictatorial criticism, like the critics were only dictators and not democrats. The black twitter and the mysoginists white men are two critics of white women, but not the same (one is criticism racism, and other, feminility), as Bindel thinks.

I wish for a page and a section about criticism, like in other articles, like the "TERF" article. (talk) 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nelsolino, instead of talking about your philosophy, why don't you suggest specific changes you are looking for, and the sources that support those changes. Ideally, it would be stated like this:

Change X to Y, because Z, which is supported by source A.

—valereee (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

another section by nelsolino

I edited this page and put the debate over slur in a diferent section, since the most of criticism is about how far the term went in uses, and have not to do with the original meaning of the term. So, it deserve be in a diferent section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsolino (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nelsolino, are you referring to your revert of the changes I made? —valereee (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee No. I am referring to my reverted editions; you undid the editions, so, I put it again, on thisd time, with an explanation.

Sorry for the cringe and hysterical post before. I only react like that, because thought the article was criminalising black people slangs, in such an epoch of anti-racism debate about criminology. =D

And sorry for bad english: I am a Brazilian guy that had a bad class on the language (I never was a rich guy) and learned about it only on the internet.

≤== Criticism == All my revisions, even articles in that a black female journalist in a famous British newspaper, had a critical response against the classification of the term as a pejorative, were revised. I will not edit this page anymore, because I know when become a stubborn.

I perceive a huge problem on the edition of the English version of Wikipedia: The opinion of a single author defines the content of the page. There a lot of templates about a theme, made by terms that are not recognized, even by the creators of the others term of the template. Several terms are completely interseccional and on the template, is put like different ones. A user will read and think that the opinion of an author is worldwide accepted. And there are pages about ideologies that only adepts of that ideology edits, sir, it becomes partitioned. Just look on templates like "Template: Voting systems", in that exists a voting system never applied in any country or municipality. It's just article spamming.

If you only quotes opnions of people like Julie Bindel (that support a lot of controversal opnions, worse than using a slang) and a lawyer that is concerned about memes on the internet, instead the opinion of the vast majority of the internet uses and the vast majority of the black people (and worse: quote people wishing to criminalizes them), so, the reader of this article will think that the meme was a polemical debate, like nationwide trials. The article has only changed opinions, but not inform any more.

I only ask to keep at the top of the page, a template "

", because, actually, the point of view of these white feminist thinkers does not represent the opinion of not a half of the internet users.

I love this site, and l learned a lot with it. I am not a supporter of Bolsonaro and others critics of this site, but I know that the vast majority of the editors are white men, and the vast majority of inclusive editors, are white women. So, you should concern about how attract more people of color for the edition, or do not remove opinions of journalists of color, çole that I placed on the article. Nelsolino

Nelsolino, I'm not sure what you're asking for with this template. This term is only used in certain countries; that's made clear in the lead. It would be silly to talk about what this topic means in a country where it means nothing. It means something in some English-speaking countries. We can't globalize something that isn't global. Can you talk more about what you're looking for? —valereee (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I only wish to know why all my editions where revised yesterday, even the quotes that I've posted from journalist reviews, were removed; even bloggers are quoted in some articles.... Again, all pages, even at the Nuremberg Trials page, there are arguments against and others in favor on support of the trial.... The sexist traits of the meme, was resulted by an apropriation by white men, that erased the meaning that black people were using; and, yes, there are acts of racism that only white women do, so, there is no sexism to atribute a meme about only white women; there are, for example, differents kinds of sexism in world: the western patriarchal society is different from the east, south-asian or middle-eastern; the sexism agains trans, black or latino women are also different that lived by white women. Even that is a sexist slang, it's right to criticize black people repporting racism? Nelsolino

I changed the template to neutrality. Karen is a English-speaking synecdoche that for now, is not used globally (excluding social media). Trillfendi (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Karen

Isn't it ironic that in an attempt to shame a person who is being hurtful by calling them Karen it is being hurtful to a large group of people? These real people named Karen and the parents/families of Karens who named them Karen? My elderly mother recently learned about how the family name of Karen was being used as a negative connotation all over social media and was sad that the name she gave to her baby was being used in this way. If my strong mother was even a little bit saddened by this then what about Karens and other Karens' parents who perhaps struggle in life and are hurt a little bit more? What about the children of real Karens who have to grow up in a world where their mothers' name is being used so harshly? Will they be sad or even get teased?

It seems Karen is starting to lose it's original purpose. It's getting used to make a blanket statement for bad behaviour of white women in general. Which again is very hurtful to label a large group of people with generalities. Perhaps we could use real words with true definitions to have a stronger effect in talking about specific bad behaviour? Being Karen is being washed out because of its lack of true meaning rendering it ineffective in its original purpose and is therefore becoming meaningless. Why don't we use our real words with real meaning to have constructive conversations that can lead to real positive change and social understanding. People are getting hurt with little reward and it is counterproductive in our efforts to call out bad behaviour.

I have three reasons for writing this note. 1) My mother was upset. Not overly upset but upset enough to make me think of other mothers/children/Karens who may be more upset and wonder how they are doing. 2) My coworker, in my professional job, the other day told me she had a hard time saying my name without thinking of the negative connotations that surround it lately. No one needs any extra issues at work like this. And no I did not talk to my manager about it. 3) I just learned about this recently and have been thinking about how it is affecting Karens and Karens familes out there and maybe I just want to stand up for people who may be feeling picked on either on cyber space or real space.

I realize I may receive a lot of backlash about my note. "oh there is Karen complaining again" or "Oh just get over it"....well anyone who tells me that I should just "get over" the fact that my mother is sad and potential for other parents and children to be sad is exhibiting the same bad behaviour that the Karen movement has been trying to repress this whole time. If you had a daughter, sister or mother who was sad or upset wouldn't you stand up for them? Even against a whole wide world like the internet? Even if it meant a lot of backlash from total strangers who have no idea that I really am a kind hearted soul who is also feeling a bit sad about this whole thing myself... Kanhead (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanhead, yeah, it sucks. I wish I could change that fact. Realize that Wikipedia only reports what is being said in reliable sources. We don't cause things to be widely reported. We just report that they are widely reported. —valereee (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response! I see your point about wiki only reporting what is happening out there in the world; however, you really do cause things to be more widely reported and spread. Give yourself more credit than that. You are Wikipedia and people browse you all the time. They will read about Karen being used in a harsh manner and they will be sheep and do it too. Just by having it on the internet more often does not help in general and will hurt people who may be already hurting in these difficult times. Kanhead (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there's truth in that. Unfortunately we have absolute policy about not censoring; if any editor can show that a subject is notable, no one else can object to that article on the basis of its offensiveness. You might be shocked at some of the things we have articles about. We have an article about the n-word, and we fully spell it out 70+ times in that article. —valereee (talk)

Totally different and more horrendous Kanhead (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you had to take offence to an article on Wikipedia, you see, they don't plan on people being mean to Karens, they intend to give information on the "meaning"(I know that it has a better meaning). Some people will take the meaning as it is in meme culture, others will not. It only depends on how many take offence to it. The best way to handle your name being subject to a meme/slang about a bitch is just to ignore it Kitsune 177013 (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Fuel to the fire.

One minute to spark change

How to confront bad behaviour. Make people understand how their words and actions can hurt other people or are simply exhausting to deal with. Do it in such a way that they ponder it and won’t do it again. Which we all want.

Talk to them. Calmly. Gently. Be better than them. You get angry and loud and they won’t listen. Like you don’t listen to them. Be curious. Make them think. Make them self reflect. Entice self reflection and therefore change. People can only change from within. Making the world a better place. Which is what we all want. Make them ponder their words and actions by wondering why they are being this way. Ask them why? Why are they full of hate? Do they think their behaviour is actually really helping them? Or the world? Kill them with kindness.

You can’t fight kindness. And if they do they are sad and struggling within themselves. Feel sorry for them.

Don’t call them something vague like bitch, asshole or Karen. Reflect why you call them that. Because it’s easy and popular? You just can’t think of anything more specific in a heated moment? That’s fair. Take a breath. Use these words instead.

Spoiled selfish unkind entitled racist antimask antivax loud rude obnoxious

If Karen had stuck to its original purpose and meaning it would be much more effective. But I have seen the internet use it encompass all these things.

Spoiled. Selfish. Unkind. Entitled. racist antimask antivax loud rude obnoxious

Rendering meaning asshole and bitch.

I will be fine. But sometimes when I am having a bad day and I see FuckKaren on the internet my heart hurts a little. I know there are other people out there struggling and hurting even more than me. For a word that has little other meaning than asshole. We might as well use asshole instead. It wouldn’t be hurtful because we all have one of those!!

Thank you for taking a minute to ponder. ❤️A Real Karen Kanhead (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Kanhead! I'd suggest writing an essay on social media. If it gets picked up by reliable sources, Wikipedia can report on that. —valereee (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forum pages. This is not a place for you to rant. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This should be moved from (pejorative) to (slang) or (insult)

The page probably needs to be moved to another title in order to be more in line with the style used on similar articles. Someone pointed out to me that it seemed like a bit of undue weight in favor of the "slur" side to include "(pejorative)" in the article header. The article itself, of course, does a good job detailing the disagreement between those who insist it's an anti-woman, anti-white slur and those who insist it isn't. I think that the consensus is developing in favor of finding Karen to be "not a slur."

The article's "see also" section gives a variety of examples of similar insults based on someone's demography and behavior, but they're all classed as slang:

• Becky_(slang)
• Chad_(slang)
• Kyle_(slang)
• Trixie_(slang)
• different but still commendable: Gammon_(insult)

The treatment of other insults shows a tendency to avoid calling the main page 'pejorative':

• Guido_(slang) (redirects from Guido_pejorative)
• Cracker (term) (redirects from cracker_pejorative)
• Faggot_(slang) (redirects from fag_pejorative)
• Snowflake (slang) (redirect from Snowflake (pejorative))

The one odd exception that's readily available is Schmuck_(pejorative).

In short, calling it a 'pejorative' is ceding ground to those who'd call it a slur. If there's a desire to be more specific than 'term' or 'slang,' a more neutral term that still communicates how it expresses disapproval like 'insult' would do the job just fine.

Emoprog (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about 'ceding ground'. That doesn't really matter here; we're trying to find consensus, and if pejorative is correct, it's correct. It doesn't really matter what other articles use; they could be wrong. If you want to argue that insult is a more common word than pejorative, that would probably be your best argument. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

New York Times article

"A Brief History of 'Karen'" Mapsax (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Mapsax, thanks, finally got around to updating with this! —valereee (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bitch media & tone tag

Hey, TrynaMakeADollar, this is a 26-year-old magazine that appears to have editorial oversight and a board of directors. Is there a reason you marked it as unreliable? And can you talk about what you see as the tone problem here? —valereee (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bitch Media is 26-years old and does have editorial oversight. However, the magazine has an obvious political and social slant. It is decidedly feminist and liberal. In the context of this article, it should not be used. Another example would be the National Review. The National Review is a well known conservative magazine and website. The magazine is older than Bitch media or Bitch magazine, and it also has a much larger circulation. It has editorial oversight as well. And although it is true that National Review's reporting is mostly factual, in the context of a politically charged controversy article, many on WP will argue that it should not be used as a source. It should not be too hard to replace the Bitch media source with something else, although the entire statement that it is used as a cite for is a bit weird.

The tone of this article appears to me to be a bit politically or socially motivated. Some of the statements seem to be inserted and worded in that way. Back in June you made some removal of text that appeared to be OR and slanted. I think much of that still remains in this article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

TrynaMakeADollar, can you point out specifically what you're objecting to? It's hard to fix if we don't know where specifically the problems are. —valereee (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

this should be removed - causing bullying in schools

Including a name that is currently attached to kids in our school system and officially making it an insult or perogatory term is a source of increased bullying and should not be permitted. Children bawling in classes and at home because kids are using their name as an insult to other kids is unacceptable. This should be removed from wikipedia!!!!! N1234s1234 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, N1234s1234. It's terrible that any child would be bullied over their name. Wikipedia doesn't officially make anything true. We report what reliable sources are saying about issues. We believe it's better for people to be able to find information that is cited to reliable sources, even if that information is painful. I'm so sorry any child would be hurt by it, but imagine what might come up if Wikipedia didn't come up first. Horrible things, perhaps. —valereee (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Karen Slur Has Moved to Sanctioned Hate Speech & Threats

The term Ku Klux Karen and KKKaren has been used on social media to further target people decried as Karen (https://www.facebook.com/groups/250903292650773/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/231751308106561/) to the point that one particular page has a Nazi Germany style Swastika in the background behind an American flag, calling itself Ok Ku Klux Karen (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1150446538649880/), promoting the idea that this use of hate symbols and hate against "Karen" is furthering racial and social justice efforts. Nonetheless, the most prominent part of what these pages are doing is rendering the name of 1.1 million women and girls as synonymous with hate, ugliness, and evil itself. As a result, several people have confused the term connoting undesirable behavior with people named Karen making references to AK-47s being designed to to kill "all Karens who are 47 years old" or to "punch Karen in the face if I meet her" (see Theodore @FredNietzky on Twitter on 8/28/20).

The term is being used increasingly to target, silence, shame, and bully women who speak out to the point that prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem have spoken out against the fad (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gloria-steinem-julie-taymor-karen-meme-sexist-162810020.html). To date, social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, and others have taken little to action to slow the torrent of hatred being directed into this mean-spirited fad, despite the fact that no one can agree on what the term means aside from it being a women's name and it becoming increasingly distressing for these women in 2020.

When requesting advice on how to help cope with the torrent of hatred, one particular advice columnist said that women named Karen should quietly bear the brunt of the abuse of their name due to other people suffering at other times for other greater issues than having their name shamed. Thus, due to a random selection of naming, these people named Karen should suffer as a form of reparations and misplaced penance since their suffering somehow increases the cause of racial and social justice (https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/woman-named-karen-wants-to-change-name-memes-advice). Nonetheless, the author ignores the fact that the primary users of the slur are white people and many minority people have spoken out against using the term Karen due to it providing anonymity to racists (https://www.indy100.com/article/karen-women-racist-white-supremacist-9599616). The advice columnist further references that the very act of speaking out against one's name being used as a slur is considered "Karenish" (unladylike) and akin to being a termagant.

Some have speculated that not taking the Karen "joke" in stride means that the victim is uptight and/or sensitive, just as those women who don't tolerate sexual harassment were considered "uptight" and "sensitive" in the past. The #MeToo movement has made no efforts to stand up for the 1.1 million totally innocent women and girls named Karen who are suffering abuse, bullying, threats, and difficulty navigating the world as a result of the popularity of Karen name-shaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbybaxter (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting the article as you seem to want it to be written would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:ESSAY. Quite frankly, writing it your way would cause this article to suffer from anti-young person ageism. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vax beliefs not a major aspect of term

The primary usage of Karen is to describe a meddlesome, usually white woman, who interferes with others who do not directly affect her or loudly demands redress in a public setting, e.g. by asking for manager. In some of the recent protests, the term has been applied to any adult white woman, and taken on the character of a racial slur; yet the original usage remains alongside. There is one source being cited to claim that a primary characteristic of 'a Karen' is 'anti-vaccination beliefs.' There isn't a preponderance of sources establishing this as a primary aspect of the term. User Valereee has made scores of edits on this article over the last several months, and seems to be intent on taking control of the article rather than deferring to consensus. She has reverted waves of edits by many editors on multiple occasions, simply asserting it was 'better before' without explanation, and then orders the editors to 'talk' or says 'let's discuss,' yet does not wait for a consensus on her reversions to develop. I want to establish this here so that we can have a broad conversation and avoid dominance of the article by one or a small handful of editors. The article deals with an international, somewhat major phenomenon and shouldn't be the domain of one or two editors, when hundreds have contributed to it thus far. Muirchertach1 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Muirchertach1, the anti-vaxxer stuff is sourced in multiple RS. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

where

This may not be as commonly known outside the US, but it's definitely in use in other English-speaking countries. I've added info from sources to clarify. —valereee (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We've gone back and forth multiple times between 'English-speaking world/countries' and naming specific countries we have sources for. No matter what we use, someone objects and changes it. Can we settle on something? Right now the article includes sources supporting the UK, US, AU, and NZ. It doesn't mention Canada, S Africa, Ireland, or any of the various island nations. Anyone? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

major removals of content

Devonian Wombat, let's talk. That was a major removal of content. All of that content was sourced. —valereee (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea why the founder of Know Your Meme is considered a subject-matter expert, so there is no reason to quote him. The opinion of Freeman is unsourced, so there is no reason for it to be in the article at the moment, and that entire section suffers from Weasel Wording. The article currently suffers from severe WP:NPOV and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE problems, and the way to fix that is not to blindly add in every single article that mentions this, but to select some of the better ones and actually explain the reasoning behind why the meme is considered sexist by some, as opposed to just quoting random lines from an article. In the process, we should also remove some sources, since the article is currently pretty damn bloated.

I'd also like to draw special attention to this line: "Julie Bindel asked, "Does anyone else think the Karen-slur is woman-hating and based on class prejudice?" That is obviously not a NPOV way of talking about that article, it portrays the opinion of Bindel in Wikipedia's voice, as well as this sentence: "prompting one critic to ask whether the term had devolved into a all-purpose term of disapproval or criticism for middle-aged white women." That is blatant Weasel wording, and it's not even attributed to the critic. Who is this critic, why are they relevant enough to be quoted? All in all, the bits I removed were poorly worded, did not adhere to NPOV, and did not provide any useful information. There is more to content than it just being sourced.

Also, what you just did was a completely inappropriate use of the Twinkle tool, which is supposed to be used only in cases of vandalism. One thing I do agree with you on however, is that anti-vaccination beliefs are part of the "Karen" stereotype. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it one by one. We could change the prompting one critic assertion to "Kaitlynn Tiffany, writing in The Atlantic, asked "Is a Karen just a woman who does anything at all that annoys people?"

I don't see how the Bindel quote is NPOV. It's an opinion, sourced to the notable person whose opinion it is.

The Know Your Meme person is being quoted by Nina Burleigh. We aren't actually using KYM as the source, we're using a quote in a story by an investigative journalist.

Hm, on twinkle. It's not just for vandalism, but I probably should have provided a more detailed edit summary. I guess I figured I'd cover that here, but I apologize.

Totally open to removing bloat. I've been just trying to keep the darn anti-vaxx stuff in, as for some reason that's a hot button for multiple newer editors. Maybe they're anti-vaxxers themselves and don't like being associated with the meme? :D —valereee (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first change, but I just don't like using the term "asked", it just feels like editorializing, I'd much prefer using "declared" or "writing", that just sounds better. Same thing for the Bindel quote, I'm fine with it being kept in, but I don't want to keep using "asked" before quotes like that.

I accept the point about Schimkowitz, hope you don't mind if I reword that sentence a bit to make it a bit clearer. I'm also noting somewhat of a disconnect between the sources and the content in the article. And yeah, I agree that is probably the reasoning behind the anti-vaxx reverts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

karen

rude lady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.235.34 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxer

This is well-sourced. I'm not sure why so many people want to remove it, but I didn't have to go through even half the sources to find 4 mentions, which I think should be sufficient. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's BS. The "anti-vaxxer" stance is brought in obviously as an attempt to discredit via association. Also don't know what the "white privilege" conspiracy theory got to do with it. Karen was just a name given to demanding women that try to be difficult with some employees that may or may not have slipped up on something. --105.4.4.242 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Origin of "Karen"

The term "Karen" originally referred to the fictional character Karen Walker (Will & Grace), acted by Megan Mullally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.151.216 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, can you give us a link to it? —valereee (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The will and grace reference is definitely not the origin of Karen! 100% it’s from the movie goodfellas. As the movie progresses and ray liottas character gets more and more addicted to coke, his marriage becomes more strained. His wife Karen and him constantly bicker and argue. This results in him pejoratively exclaiming “KAAARENN” every time they argue. There is no source for this but this is for certain the origin of the insult. Ma$ter n00b (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Bob cut" hairstyles

I've never seen this, but I've seen a disproportionate amount of bright pink or blue-dyed hair among Karens. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We call 'em danger hairs. It's practically a method of identifying them. TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Feminism?

In what way is this article/term related to feminism? If it has something to do with women, then it is not necessarily in the category of feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16AdityaG09 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC) This term is neither used by feminists nor against feminists. Why is this in feminism category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16AdityaG09 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

by whom tags

Hey, Lovewhatyoudo, you've added those tags twice to the lead. What are you objecting to? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead should clarify (1) who use it as a general-purpose term for middle-aged white women and who depict white women who use their privilege to demand their own way. -- love.wh 01:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lovewhatyoudo, well, but it's a meme. Almost by definition that means that we can't identify any particular person who is using it. People who use memes in general are using it as a term and depicting it in ways reliable sources are talking about. I'm not sure it's actually possible to identify this in the way you're asking for. —valereee (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A separate paragraph on who are the users of such meme is much needed. Then, we summarize that in the lead, and if such is too complicated to be summarized, the lead shall at least put it as "the meme users use it as a general-purpose term" and "the meme users depict white women...". -- love.wh 06:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lovewhatyoudo, the users of the meme are people on the the internet. It's a meme. I don't think we can use "the meme users use it", as that is pretty awkward. I'll revise to try to clarify.

Please ping when replying, I have 5000 pages on my watch, thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Is 'Karen' a particularly US-English term?

I've seen many women being referred to as 'Karens' on videos commentating on the 2020 US election, but I've never seen or heard the term used in the UK. This article does not suggest that use of the term is limited to the US, although from my perception it is and almost every example in the article supports this opinion.

Any views on this? A dictionary usually indicates if slang usage is restricted to a certain locale.

(I'm not aiming to edit the article, but merely highlight that it may be lacking something. I just came here looking for enlightenment!)

EdJogg (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJogg, we've gone back and forth. When someone changes it to in the US, someone from Oz pipes up that it's there too. Someone else says it's in all English-speaking countries. Someone else comes in and says they've never heard it in the UK. :D It's definitely been used in AU/NZ. BBC has reported on it. But it's hard to source reliably because no one is straight-out saying "Karen is used in X, Y, and Z countries; no evidence of it has been found elsewhere." —valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee – Thank you. After writing that, I did notice there was a considerable Archive of discussions which covered the same point, but it was too late by then! A casual visitor may not be aware that such Archive pages exist, but as I have now asked the same question again, it is now visible on the active Talk page again (at the moment!), so that's less of a problem.

EdJogg (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdJogg, I'm almost wondering if this article needs an FAQ lol... —valereee (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee – You may well be right. If the action of an archiving bot causes a question to be asked again and again, the archiving is counter-productive.

-- EdJogg (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thousands of Karen refugees live in the US. They are a people.

There should be a section about the implications of the use of this term for Karen people who are actually members of the Karen ethnic minority in Myanmar, who are at odds with the ruling dictatorship, and hundreds of thousands of whom have become refugees. I teach at a middle school in Minnesota with a population of 1/4 to 1/3 Karen students. Seeing this name as a pejorative makes me cringe! I'm not very current on my slang, so I just learned of this term today. I didn't know my students were growing up hearing the name of their people used as a pejorative. Obviously no one ever intended this pejorative use of "Karen" to be a slur on the Karen minority, but I think that needs acknowledging, or at least mention in the lede. 75.73.160.251 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It is sad to know so many Karens not only live in discrimination but also have their human rights threatened. All I can say is your students should proud to be a Karen and to educate the activists who misuse this term. -- love.wh 09:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Hello, I read this article looking for a good definition of a "Karen" and I had a concern about the topic of "white privilege." Firstly, I know that in the little experience I have had "Karen" is used by multiple ethnic groups, and it is almost never used to point out someone's skin color but rather their character. Secondly, I personally don't think that the majority of people who use the word "Karen" think about racism, skin color, or ethnic groups. I think that the term usually refers to a white female because of the stereotype. It would seem that most people might consider it "racist" if roles were reversed and a "Karen" was described as a black suburban "soccer mom," the definition would be politically incorrect and possibly considered hate speech.

I think that the best change would be to remove "The term also refers to memes depicting white women who use their privilege to demand their own way," and replace it with something like, "This term also refers to women who use their status as a 'customer' in order to manipulate and especially correct inconveniences and or wrongs at a business establishment."

I love everything else that I've read that you've written, and appreciate the research and work you've put into it, I just wanted to point out that it seems irrelevant to bring "white privilege" into this particular definition.

Best regards. Slade Farnsley (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the sentence you've proposed to change is cited, so is unlikely to be changed based on what editors alone think - see WP:OR. You may want to find reliable sources that back up what you want to change - visit the reference desk for help with doing so. Seagull123 Φ 18:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SNL

@Ngriffeth, I'm not seeing how the SNL para goes into criticism. It's not about criticism of the use of the term. It's about the use of the term and how white people started to get it. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Origin: Karen Walker in Will & Grace

This is the original Karen that inspired the meme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8Iut_RWDU

2405:9800:B550:FB34:1205:C222:C8CF:C9DA (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@2405:9800:B550:FB34:1205:C222:C8CF:C9DA: Interesting: is there a source which discusses this as the origin for the term, or is this original research?

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

I believe the term is also used frequently to describe women who have a heightened sense of conformity during the Covid pandemic, specifically those who may confront or whistleblow someone not following a particular protocol - wearing of masks, proximity to others as examples. Senator Rand Paul recently used the term in this context for a woman who became confrontational when he was not wearing a mask on a gym machine. Stuartsv73 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Stuartsv73 Stuartsv73 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stuartsv73, we need sources for this content -- maybe you've seen an article somewhere that discusses? —valereee (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Karen means woman and men who go freak out over tiny things such like . not wearing masks Jj8867 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Karen "only refers to White women" is verifiably inaccurate

See this link where a black woman notes a couple of people saw her as a Karen: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-01-02/race-karen-neighborhood-facebook-page Also looking at opinions on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hk762k/what_is_the_black_version_of_a_karen_called/ and Quora (since this is a popular culture idea) people don't necessarily see this as a forcibly racialized term. However I don't think these sources are applicable to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.g.lab. (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Is adding a meme appropriate?

I suppose the difficulty is in obtaining a Karen meme lawfully. Wasn't sure about such an issue and whether a photo could be added to the Commons. --D.g.lab. (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin

@Drmies: thank you for improving the references. The new version of *Origin* as you proposed starts with "In African-American culture, there is a long history..." and is bookended with "A more pointed explanation, which involves race". This is a doublet.

Furthermore, the fact that black people used name-calling does not explain the rise of the word 'Karen' in particular. This frames the explanation incorrectly. Remarks about race are more to the point under *Racism*.

This remark is made to prevent an edit war, because I sincerely believe the presentation's organization has been worsened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.g.lab. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blog quote

"Others argue that the targets of the term have immense privilege, and that "an epithet that lacks the power to discriminate is just an insult."[19]" From Wikipedia:Blogs as sources: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

In this case, the author is Jeffrey Barg, styled "Angry Grammarian". As he exclusively writes opinion pieces for The Philadelphia Enquirer, I'm not sure how he is a specialist on the topic who is relevant enough to be quoted in an encyclopedic article. Though his opinion is interesting, there are already many quotes in that section, which could do with more statements of fact than opinions. As other authors with more relevant qualifications are already mentioned, removing for the moment while attempting to make sense of the paragraphs. --D.g.lab. (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Rambling quote

"Grigsby Bates said, "And T'Challa is getting all his answers wrong in Jeopardy because the game is based on black American idioms, which he doesn't get at all because, duh, he's from Wakanda. But at the last minute, he's asked about someone named Karen bringing her potato salad to his cookout." T'Challa gets the last question right, telling Karen "Aw, hell no, Karen. Keep your bland-ass potato salad to yourself"; Clark "says this moment and a few others like it is when the nation kind of got it, too."

This quote, while interesting and well sourced, seems anecdotal, difficult to understand, and not quite up to encyclopedic standard. Because there are already many quotes in this section, cutting it down to a summary instead, while keeping the citation as support for the previous assertion about Jeopardy. --D.g.lab. (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, this phrase: "Adam Downer, associate editor at Know Your Meme, said that while the 2017 Reddit version of the meme had started out primarily as a joke, its meaning had evolved to "[speak] to the sobering real-life consequences"."

Would an encyclopedia quote Know Your Meme as an authoritative source on racial matters? Dubious; removing. --D.g.lab. (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Capitalisation Question

Why is "Black" capitalised in this article, but "white" is all lower case?

Marchino61 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what most reliable sources are doing now. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, ping didn't work Marchino61 —valereee (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. While many US sources do this, UK sources generally don't. And even if these sources do this, it still doesn't answer the question why "white" and "Black" are treated differently. It smacks of racial discrimination to me.

Marchino61 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As I have attempted (somewhat unsuccessfully) to correct this issue in the article, I will first direct this discussion to WP:MOS/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages. My own perspective: Asians are not 'yellow', Native Americans are not 'red', Hispanics are not 'brown', and Africans are not 'black'. These chromatic references have been used historically to refer to ethnicity, but despite its continued prominence (e.g. Black Lives Matter), it is incorrect to do so today and is considered an ethnic slur. With the chromatic ethnic labels being inappropriate, we should attempt to use the lowercase form whenever it is reasonable to do so (i.e. WP:TITLEFORMAT, MOS:QUOTE). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I personally think the writer either has a bias or used biased sources that see things through "American black class vs. white class" glasses. This article which should be about a personality type is somehow all about skin colour and class privilege instead. How do we edit this capitalization? Am I allowed to edit this? I've been mostly discouraged from editing Wikipedia because when editing contentious things inevitably someone else will come along and remove the edits, giving some sort of reason. Also, even while the article is obviously biased, I suspect it attracts the type of writing and media coverage that sees everything through racial class, making less biased but reputable sources for this oddly specific cultural topic unlikely. --D.g.lab. (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchino61 and DeNoel: I've search and edited all mentions of "Black" and "White", except when in quotation marks. --D.g.lab. (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I previously started to convert uppercase color labels to lower case, until I realized I was getting over my head, and decided that I was not entirely prepared for the task. I really didn't want to check every citation title and quotation just for a different letter case, although I do appreciate consistency. Be careful that you don't accidentally change too much. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Capitalize the words "white" and "brown" when they refer to "white people/women/men" and "brown people/women/men" for consistency with the capitalization of "black" when referring to "black people/women/men". 24.130.152.125 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I've requested information at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style to see if there is some consensus for this type of capitalization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think this matches current MOS consensus, as Black was capitalized. From what I read it's either call capitalized or none capitalized, don't mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There is still one instance in the section titled "Racism" where "brown" is lowercase. 2601:640:4000:3170:54DC:7DDE:B805:F16 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I've read there's no consensus on "brown" since it's not a stand alone racial identifier. To be honest the whole thing confuses me. Let see what other commentary pops up before I edit that. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:PEOPLANG: "Brown should not be used in Wikipedia's own voice, as it is ambiguous, and in the currently popular sense is informal, an Americanism, and a neologistic usage which conflicts with prior more specific senses." --Khajidha (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Racism

This is a very racist term. The term does not include all people, just white women. If you were to walk out into the street and ask any reasonable person of any color what a Karen is... they would say entitled, white, women. Just because you can arbitrarily use the term for any person it still has a base meaning rooted in a stereotype. This is the same argument used in the overuse of the N-word by multiple social and ethnic groups. Changing a couple of letters or an inflection makes no difference and shows that a person truly does not care about social progress just an eye for an eye. It will never work. We must stop all use of terms made to degrade, diminish, repress, humiliate, and torture humans. It starts by understanding that a term used to describe an ethnic group or action is wrong, and defending it makes you part of the larger issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcondart (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It clearly is a racist term. How can a pejorative term aimed specifically, exclusively at white women NOT be called racist? It is fascinating that the whole article does not mention this aspect even once! Someone locked the article for several months, go figure. As soon as possible, someone should modify the very first sentence to this: "Karen is a racist, pejorative term used …". If there would be an analog term for black women, lets say "Latisha", all hell would brake lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.123.82 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say; we need a reliable source calling this a racist term. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While the model "Karens" have been predominantly white women, it is actually better described as their behavior. It's not limited by race. Men can act like a "Karen" and so can others of different ethnicity. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The term "Karen" is generally directed at white women, yes, but that in itself does not make it racist, because you cannot be racist against white people. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In reply to "you cannot be racist against white people", I'm afraid I don't agree with this opinion. For the moment, I don't care to pull up historical sources (this is just a Talk page discussion), but people of European descent have most definitely been discriminated against, often times as immigrants. Any group that becomes the minority—whether an entire population, or a couple of people that happened to walk into an establishment, such as a bar— can find themselves discriminated against, including "white people". This continues even today, though to a lesser extent than previously.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination against white immigrants isn't a form of racism against white people, Europeans were historically discriminated against for their ethnic background but not out of anti-whiteness, which is a difference that people seem to neglect. Historically White Supremacism would exclude these ethnic groups from being considered "white" just to discriminate against them, often saying "jews aren't white" or comparing the Irish to black people. This isn't to say that the mentioned groups aren't white, but rather that to refer to their discrimination and oppression as an act of anti-whiteness trivializes and decontextualizes it.UlyssesYYZ (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not a racist term because for one, the term "Karen" is used to describe entitled people in general. It does not limit to white women only. There could be a black man who is a Karen. I just haven't run into one yet. 168.99.101.40 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Joann Thee Stallion

As time has progressed more news articles have been written on the subject of "Karen" being a racial slur. According to wiki white papers all sides must be shown and this article should reflect the viewpoints of those who identify "Karen" as a racial slur. Remember to cite your claims and avoid opinions or original work. 12.227.66.34 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Karen is the name of an ethnic group from Burma/Myanmar. See Karen people. They are an ethnic minority with a history of conflict against the ruling dictatorship, and many are refugees. There are thousands living here in Minnesota. To make the name of their people into a slur IS racist, but not for the reason anybody is arguing, and there should be mention of them in this article. 75.73.160.251 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To the least extent, the term Karen is racist towards Karen people immigrated from Myanmar to Minnesota, US. I hope these Karen immigrant children will be proud to be a Karen irrespective of what the US media portray this term to be. -- love.wh 07:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Article about "Karen" is written as "Black" vs. "White"

As the article states, it would be possible for a man to be a Karen. Following this logic, it would also be possible for any woman of any colour to be called "Karen" (see this example of a black woman complaining about being called Karen on Facebook). Since the origins are broadly known as a blonde with a bob haircut, it is fine to mention skin colour in that context, but further and continued references to colour ought to be removed as they are irrelevant. Since this term is so well known in popular culture, it would easily apply to a person of any origin.

As mentioned above, I suggest that Black and White be de-capitalized.

Second, I suggest that this article be tagged for being opinionated so that more balanced sources be added to this article, which right now only espouses American Marxist-feminist/Woke subculture views which don't apply to the rest of the world at large (neutral point of view). --D.g.lab. (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion tag added. Please suggest balanced sources. --D.g.lab. (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nampa DC: the removal of the tag seems heavy-handed without any discussion on the talk page, seeing that the issue was not addressed. Nevertheless, instead of challenging it I plan to reorganize the article under a racism heading, where similar statements can be addressed and edited together. Hopefully that is acceptable, as right now the article reads like an opinion piece. --D.g.lab. (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Read the wikipedia MOS. Either both black and white have to be capitalized or neither. "No." is not a valid reasoning to remove correctly formatted edits, nor did you bother bringing it up on the talk page where it was addressed here days ago. Drassow (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it says it right there: "The status quo practice had been that either style was permissible, and this proposal did not overturn that". And the close of the linked discussion does not, in fact, say that its both or neither. What you need to ask yourself is what you are doing in this article. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-read the wording. "Either style" refers to "Black" and "White" or "black" and "white". The consensus in the page you listed pretty clearly states, "Consensus >against< changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor." Drassow (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And that discussion has since been incorporated into MOS:PEOPLANG. Guidance is both or neither should be capitalized, but mixed usage is not allowed. That is: B&W or b&w, but not B&w or b&W. Capitalization is preferred if other capitalized ethnic terms are used. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• We go with what reliable sources are doing. Most RS are using Black, most are using white. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we do NOT go with what sources are doing. Wikipedia:News style fallacy. Wikipedia follows its own MOS. Drassow (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an essay. It is an opinion piece, not a guideline or policy. But beyond that, the argument is not just that this is what many reliable news sources are using but what many of the very best reliable sources are using, such as textbooks and other books published by academic publishers, research institutions, etc. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Redlink removal

Hey, Areaseven, I'd like to restore those links. I think these women might be notable, and I'd like to communicate that to other editors. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Then go ahead and create their articles. Nothing's more inconvenient than leading readers to a dead end. BTW, there was a Meredith Clark article that was deleted in 2015 for CSD:A7. - Areaseven (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Areaseven, Meredith Clark is a fortyish academic. The fact she wasn't notable 6 years ago doesn't mean she might not be now, and there is nothing wrong with redlinks. Redlinks are helpful to the encyclopedia. This is established consensus. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I mean: Meredith Clark at google scholar shows that in 2015 Clark was cited six times. In 2020, 192 times. So far this year, 50 times. —valereee (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes redlinks helpful to the encyclopedia? - Areaseven (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK - "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As @Firefangledfeathers notes, this is established policy. Areaseven, I'm surprised that someone with tens of thousands of edits and almost fifteen years of experience isn't aware of the value of redlinks. If you've been removing redlinks because you think they're unhelpful, please don't do that any more. People add redlinks because they think a subject might be notable enough for an article, don't currently themselves have the time, expertise, or interest to develop that article, and want to signal other editors that this might be a subject worth writing about. Redlinks tell other editors, in effect, "Hey, if you know anything about this subject, it looks to me like it might be worth developing an article about." Redlinks are part of the collaborative process. Viewing red links as helpful to the encyclopedia is long-established consensus. We only remove red links because we think a subject is almost certainly not notable. Meredith Clark may not be notable yet; I am not an expert in WP:SCHOLAR. But I think it's quite plausible that she is, which is why I redlinked her. Same for the other scholars/journalists I red linked.

(A7, I've not pinged you because when someone I'm in a discussion with repeatedly doesn't ping me, I assume it means they prefer not to be pinged. For the record, I actually do prefer to be pinged.) —valereee (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Red links can clutter an article, but it is easier to cross-link articles if the link already exists, rather trying to add them back later. I make case-by-case assessments using my best judgement: if the article linked may be created in the ambiguously near future, then I will leave it alone. However, if it seems unlikely that such an article would be created in the ambiguously near future, then I remove the red link. If an article that is red linked is being written, it may be in the early stages, and the author may be working on other projects, so I leave "near future" as an undefined time interval.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@DeNoel, I think that's a reasonable rule of thumb. I don't think many articles need more than a couple redlinks, but occasionally I'll come across a subject -- and this is one of them -- where I suspect the experts being quoted are notable but due to WP's unintentional biases, articles about them haven't yet been created. I used three redlinks. A7 removed all three. I reinstated two; one of those has since become an article. I believe the other two are likely notable enough (or possibly will be soon), and there's actually a third quoted expert who might also be notable. I didn't redlink him because I felt like 4 was a lot of redlinks. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

racist slur question

@Neonpixii, I added a couple of sources that discuss the question and tweaked the assertion. The point the assertion was intended to make I think wasn't that it's racist -- the point is that there's discussion of whether it's racist. —valereee (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

You should change the name from "Karen (pejorative)" to "Karen (derogatory)," because it's really funny. 73.176.245.64 (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Living Concrete (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove lead image of Kate Gosselin?

I've been becoming more and more uncomfortable with using the image of Kate Gosselin as the lead image here. She is a living person, and while I know she's one of the most extremely public persons, she is still a living human being. Should we find another image for the lead? (I don't offhand have a better suggestion, as admittedly that image of her is pretty spot-on.) —valereee (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the image. The sources used here and at Kate Gosselin associate her with Karens because of the hair cut. Reliable sources talking about Karens in general are more focused on behavior. Gosselin's photo is illustrating only a minor aspect of this subject. I also don't have any great suggestions for replacement. Possibilities include no image (an improvement to me), an illustration, and possibly a non-free image of a famous Karen example—though I'm not confident such a use would be justified and it would still have the "living person" problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree using a photo of one of the other karens, even if it were a free photo, probably isn't the way to go. Like basically we'd be making the 2021 equivalent of the old joke come true, "Look up the word asshole in the dictionary and there's a picture of him." I'm going to remove the Gosselin image for now while we discuss. —valereee (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable examples

I kind of feel like this section is getting out of hand. Do we really need to list every person who has ever been called this in the media? Can we just pick like the three most important, maybe? —valereee (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm proposing we delete all but the ones that are most notable/heavily covered, and the ones that aren't just the same story, different day/location -- maybe three or four?

I'd keep

• Australian
• Asian healthcare workers
• Central Park Birdwatcher Karen
• Soho Karen

—valereee (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I support paring down the section. The goal is to use examples to illustrate the concept, not to maintain a constantly-updated list of news articles about Karens. I don't have a well-informed opinion on which examples need to remain. My strong preference is to establish a consensus here about the purpose of the Notable examples section because we will almost certainly see future editors looking to add in a Karen-of-the-week. It would helpful to have a place to point to when reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to get some consensus on how we determine whether an example is noteworthy enough. Certainly any incident that has its own article should be included. I'm thinking for any other incident, some combination of

• Amount of coverage in RS; should be longer articles rather than short news reports of bad behavior
• National/international coverage; shouldn't simply be covered in local area
• Ongoing mentions; more mentions over a longer period, being used as an example in scholarly work, etc., rather than a couple of articles the day after the incident happened.
• Not just same old "racist does racist stuff" reports of people being Karenish.

Not every entry necessarily needs to meet all of these. But an entry that doesn't meet any of them would be an immediate fail.

—valereee (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)