Talk:Call-out culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources

This is an interesting social phenomenon that is occurring in subsets of society today and this article could certainly use some more detail and references/sources. Clarebrady (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I just added some content to ensure that the article is unbiased and more in-depth. Clarebrady (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins/history

This could be a good header for a title if the article isn't merged. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9D62:4D85:AD95:1CAB (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of "Examples" Section

Proposition to expand section titled "Examples". Looking to provide more real-world application of "Call-out" culture (eg) Kyler Murray tweets, recent Joe Biden allegations, James Gunn & Disney, etc These examples and continued scholarly contribution may provide additional context to readers Btorszag (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Links to proposed additions Biden https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-accused-of-inappropriate-physical-contact-by-multiple-women-says-he-will-change-his-behavior/2019/04/03/05b5ea58-5643-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.ba3e987ace22 Gunn https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/disney-reinstated-director-james-gunn-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3.html Murray https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/us/kyler-murray-tweets-apology/index.html Btorszag (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added a note to that section and removed some "examples". Any examples we use must be referred in their sources as examples of "call-out culture" or "cancel culture". They can't be just what we think are examples, because that is WP:Original research. Also, these are "examples" - we don't need every single one. Pick a few, and make sure they are very high quality - the more sources that cite them as call-out/cancel examples, the better - and remove any lesser-quality ones. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The source for Black Mirror specifically mentions outrage as in outrage culture, which is synonymous and so I've added that example back. There are a number of examples currently present at cancel culture that will also be merged into this article as well. You might want to look there to see how much larger an example section can (and maybe should) be. The examples should show how vindictive the outrage is, how it can be applied in both small and large instances, and how it can be directed inappropriately to parties where it is not warranted. The examples should show the "good" as well as the "bad". - Paul^T+/_C 09:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it mentions "online outrage". A singular example of outrage does not equate to it being a clear example of "outrage culture". Examples are fine, but they need to be clearly relevant to the main topic (to the casual reader) and high-quality. -- Netoholic @ 11:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular" from [1] doesn't refer to "outrage culture"? What else would "mercilessly pile on with online outrage" be? This is not WP:SYNTH. See WP:SYNNOT, specifically:

WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH: SYNTH is not just any synthesis: ... Some old versions of NOR even said "Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source ..."[2] (emphasis added).,

SYNTH is not primarily point-by-point: ... Very old versions of NOR focused on crackpot theories being published whole, not on single statements within the exposition of a body of well-established fact. The under-the-microscope level of scrutiny often practiced now, which demands removal of a single clause until a source can be found that presents the material the same way, is more a result of creep than of well-thought-out policy.,

SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal: When you look at a case of putative SYNTH, apply the following test. Suppose you took this claim to a journal that does publish original research. Would they (A) vet your article for correctness, documentation, and style, and publish it if it met their standards in those areas? Or would they (B) laugh in your face because your "original research" is utterly devoid of both originality and research, having been common knowledge in the field since ten years before you were born? If you chose (B), it's not original research -- even if it violates the letter of WP:SYNTH.,

and most broadly SYNTH is not a rigid rule: Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article..

Also, per WP:BRD, you are contesting material (the Black Mirror example) that has been present in the article for quite some time and your changes/removals are being challenged. So, until consensus is formed here, the version with the material you are trying to remove should stay in the article as explained at WP:STATUSQUO. - Paul^T+/_C 17:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also also, you are getting close to violating WP:3RR: 22:38, 13 April 2019 04:35, 14 April 2019 12:10, 14 April 2019. Please come to consensus here before reverting again. - Paul^T+/_C 17:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing at all about WP:SYNTH, so this whole diatribe is pointless. Unless a source describes an event as an example of "call-out culture", we can't say it is. That is WP:OR and fails WP:Verifiability. Amazing that you think to try to call me out for reverts close to 3rr, when you've done the same number of reverts despite being asked to WP:BRD, are engaging in WP:OR as I say above, are using misleading edit summaries, and overall have been displaying wP:OWNership-like behavior over this article. -- Netoholic @ 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If not WP:SYNTH, then what exactly are you citing at WP:OR? There is nothing original in the current statement about that episode being an example of the phenomenon as explicitly stated by the writer/creator Charlie Booker. The question posed to him at [3] is "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular" and his response is "Pretty much. It was something I observed, and it's easy to caught up in yourself. There are times I've joined in the pile-on, it’s thrilling in some way." - directly verifiable. The word "culture" is a description of the phenomenon as a way to directly label it. Just because an example doesn't use that exact phrasing doesn't mean it isn't about the exact same topic. Asserting that is not "original research" nor is it "synthesis" that goes against the spirit of the guideline.

You may want to read WP:BRD a little more closely. Your removal of the Black Mirror content is what is being reverted and contested as the "R" in BRD. - Paul^T+/_C 22:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: The OR is that you have to stretch the interpretation so far to make it fit with the topic of this article, rather than finding better examples. Frankly, if there is even a debate as to interpretation, then the example is clearly not high quality and should be removed/replaced with something that is more clear. I find the Clinton and Neeson items adequate at least until other high quality and clear examples are found. That you claim to be for BRD is a bit late to the game, as that was exactly my directive to you, but you have reverted TWICE since then. In your two latest reverts you reinserted additional (extraneous) material related to Neeson, an item which you added very recently (failing your own call to BRD), and failed to mention Neeson in your edit summaries. I direct you to self-revert until we can get more outside views - only the Clinton and (shortened) Neeson are necessary for now. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is being stretched from the source. It is an example of the phenomenon. You are just asserting that in your opinion this is not the case. That is not what the source says. They directly reference "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular", which is exactly what this article is about. You have not shown anything to contradict that other than your opinion, which is irrelevant (as is mine).

Regarding BRD, yes there was other content that you removed that was more recently added, but that doesn't change the fact that your first removal of content to the page was the "bold" edit because it also removed longstanding (ish, at least 2 weeks) content that had not been disputed before - the Black Mirror bullet. To be clear, I have not fully reverted your changes. You removed two other examples about Biden and Gunn, which were added by a student trying to complete a task for a course, that I agree are not sufficently supported by the sources to be included here.

Regarding the Neeson content, each sentence is directly sourced and gives very topical examples of the calling-out, the attempt to censure/cancel, and why the negative reaction to his statements was potentially unfounded. All sourced, all directly relevant as examples of the phenomenon and the potential consequences of it for both the people being called out and the ones who are outraged. I'm happy to discuss that in detail here, but if you are just going to dismiss arguments without directly addressing them as you have with the Black Mirror content we aren't going to have a very productive discussion.

I'm happy to hear from other editors about this dispute and I'm 100% open to other views on this. In the interests of having that productive discussion, (and despite my inclination) I will self-revert the addition of the Neeson example that you are disputing so we can discuss that example in a separate section below, however, the Black Mirror content should stand until consensus determines otherwise. - Paul^T+/_C 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neeson example discussion

There is a disupute as to how elaborate the example about Liam Neeson's comments should be in the article. The version I prefer is below:

• Liam Neeson faced calls for the cancellation of Cold Pursuit, a then-newly-produced movie, after he said in an interview with The Independent that he once "roamed the streets of Northern Ireland for a week looking for a random black man to kill after his friend told him that she was raped by a black man." The film's red carpet premiere was cancelled because of the controversy. In an appearance on Good Morning America, Neeson elaborated on his experience while denying being a racist. Trevor Noah defended Neeson, saying, "I want to live in a world where a person who said something like that is ashamed of it and they are telling it to you and you aren't catching them out", and that it was a "powerful admission". Michelle Rodriguez, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ralph Fiennes have also defended Neeson.

The more condense version preferred by Netoholic is:

• Liam Neeson faced calls for the cancellation of Cold Pursuit, a then-newly-produced movie, after he said in an interview with The Independent that he once "roamed the streets of Northern Ireland for a week looking for a random black man to kill after his friend told him that she was raped by a black man."

I contend that the more elaborate version is appropriate for the article because it gives several types of examples of calling out and the consequences to calling out, as discussed earlier in the article.

The first sentence is largely identical between the two versions so I will not expound on it here other than to say that it does show the basic example of the situation, albeit with a reference removed.

The next sentence: The film's red carpet premiere was cancelled because of the controversy. shows a direct example of a consequence of the calling-out (also known as cancelling) and is therefore directly relevant.

The next sentence: In an appearance on Good Morning America, Neeson elaborated on his experience while denying being a racist. shows Neeson's reaction to the call-out and how he might be misunderstood by the blind outrage being expressed by the public, again directly relevant to similar points earlier in the article.

The final two sentences: Trevor Noah defended Neeson, saying, "I want to live in a world where a person who said something like that is ashamed of it and they are telling it to you and you aren't catching them out", and that it was a "powerful admission". Michelle Rodriguez, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ralph Fiennes have also defended Neeson. show how others are coming to Neeson's defense again as an example of how there was an overreaction in this case. Again, explicitly examples of points raised earlier in the article.

I'm interested to hear what others think about which version is a better way to show examples of the call-out/outrage/cancel phenomenon. - Paul^T+/_C 23:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Since there hasn't been any discussion for weeks, I'm going to take the WP:SILENCE as weak consensus and add the extended Neeson example back. - Paul^T+/_C 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note, the addition was reverted without any discussion here. In addition, that revert also removed additional content being discussed in the above section. Again, without any discussion here. I have reverted the article to the version before I added back the Neeson content. It would be best if all concerned editors would come to the talk page to discuss concerns rather than blindly reverting changes they personally disagree with. - Paul^T+/_C 17:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge cancel culture into call-out culture/outrage culture. Both of these terms are clearly related. While I agree that they describe different phenomenon, they are interrelated and often "calling out" (and being "outraged") leads to "canceling". Cancel culture is a newer term than call-out culture, though both have been around a while. Because of that, and the fact that the "call-out"/"outrage" often precedes "cancel", I think the content in both articles should be merged into call-out culture.

Pinging the top 10 contributers (excluding myself) between both articles: DeRossitt Koyyo Equinox Shintaraguru Daniel Case Clarebrady Netoholic TheUnbeholden HenryBarnill Pokerplayer513. - Paul^T+/_C 02:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Closely related, sure, but not seeing a lot of reliable sources that relate/equate the two. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Fair point, but compare the definitions for both terms:

  "social phenomenon of publicly denouncing perceived racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, national interest, and other forms of bigotry" vs

  "no longer morally, financially, and/or digitally supporting people—usually celebrities—or things that have been deemed unacceptable or problematic"

  The public denouncing *is* the cancelling. The more that I think about it, cancel culture is very much a subset of call-out culture. The examples of the former from the article are universally examples of the latter as well. (I also added them to the call-out culture article because they fit so well.) We'll have to see what others think. - Paul^T+/_C 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily think the opening lines are very good. But in either case, our interpretation of their relative overlap doesn't matter. Sources don't seem to equate the topic. So I'll ask you to please stop merging the articles and conflating them at least until we get more input. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  You beat me to the revert... I'm fine with leaving it as-is while the discussion unfolds.

  Is there an example of cancelling that wouldn't apply to outrage/calling out? - Paul^T+/_C 03:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, there are call-outs that don't involve calling for cancellation (of a book, movie, etc)...such as when there is a call for a change (e.g., the DVD cover for the film Pride (2014 film) was allegedly straightwashed by having LGBT slogans airbrushed out. I assume putting back the LGBT slogans on the DVD cover would be a satisfactory resolution to this concern.)OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  I may have been less clear than I intended. You are describing the reverse of what I mean. You are saying you can have a "call-out" without a "cancel", I agree and am not disputing that point. The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot have a "cancel" without a "call-out" first and therefore having a separate cancel article doesn't make much sense if it is impossible to cancel without first being called out/outraged. To put it another way, "cancel" is a subset of "call-out" and therefore the former ("cancel") should be a subsection of the latter ("call-out"). Otherwise, you end up having to describe "call-out" in two places with seemingly no benefit and arguably the downside of having to maintain two separate articles about the same general concept. - Paul^T+/_C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure. I suppose it is essentially a consequence of call-out culture. Although it seems the term has become just as commonly used as "call-out culture" and "outrage culture", but isn't interchangeable as those two are. It's a separate thing that has emerged in the last year and has been dominating current culture with things like Leaving Neverland and Surviving R. Kelly, both of which are seemingly targeted at the public to "cancel" these celebrities rather than to merely call them out. Although, again, I'm not sure since in many recent articles I have read it seems the lines between the two have been blurred, wherin the act of calling out simultaneously demands cancelling. But, again, they still aren't interchangeable and merging the article as a redirect seems like an inevitably sloppy solution. Koyyo (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment They seem to be closely related. The way columnists like David Brooks (NYT) are describing it, when a person does a call-out, it is to denounce the allegedly offensive person, thereby causing the reduction of their support online...so they seem like steps a) and b) in social media denunciation. But not sure if we can have one article, as not every call-out is calling for cancellation. Some call-outs call for the person to educate themselves.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  That sounds like an argument to support the merge to me. You can easily have a single article describing the various results of a "call-out" - inclusive of "cancel" and other possibilities. Having two separate articles would require unnecessary redundancy and could lead to confusion. - Paul^T+/_C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. These are almost identical concepts. Popcornduff (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. DeRossitt (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Sourcerery (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Any additional thoughts, OnBeyondZebrax, Koyyo, or Netoholic? It looks like there is pretty widespread support for this merge. - Paul^T+/_C 04:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Hmm... it seems Koyyo was blocked for being a sockpuppet... They were also the creator of cancel culture. However, I don't think that changes anything one way or the other. - Paul^T+/_C 04:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, its a terrible idea. cancel culture is simply a modern form of a boycott. That's the better merge target. Merging here conflates this topic. "Calling out" does not always result in a "cancel". -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  No one has asserted that every call-out results in a cancel, but the reverse is true (at least as far as I have seen). I have not seen one example of a cancelling that was not preceded by a call out. That is why call-out is the better target, it is (if ever so slightly) broader (and therefore "cancel" can neatly fit as a subsection in the parent "call-out" article). - Paul^T+/_C 05:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Every serving of tea goes into a teacup, that doesn't mean we merge the articles. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Are you really arguing tea is to teacup as cancel culture is to call-out culture (tea:teacup::cancel culture:call-out culture)? You know that is a ridiculous comparison. Even so, if the content in "tea" were substantially similar and repetitive to the content in "teacup" (based on the available sources), then you better believe there would be efforts to merge both articles into "teacup". You can plainly see this through the concurrences with my argument from Popcornduff, Ilovetopaint, DeRossitt, and Sourcerery in the above discussion. Furthermore, you can easily articulate the differences and limits to "tea" vs "teacup". Plainly, "tea" is not a subset of "teacup" and nor is the converse true. Whereas "cancel culture" is wholly subsumed into "call-out culture". If one were to make a Venn diagram for the terms, the circle for "cancel culture" would be completely inside the "call-out culture" circle. - Paul^T+/_C 17:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Having looked online for sources on both articles, it seems that there is not enough depth of content to justify two separate articles. The modest amount of coverage of cancellation culture means that this could be explained within the call-out culture article. A further demonstration of the close links between the concepts is that some sources refer to both concepts within a single sentence.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  WP:MERGEREASON gives the WP rules/recommendations on good reasons to merge pages, which are: duplication (2 articles are exactly the same subject), overlap, shortness (the 2 articles are both short), and the need for context (that merging with provide). The context rationale is used when you will understand the article better if it is merged into a "parent" article. There are some "don't merge" rules, too, which are if the merge will make the new article too long or clunky; if the 2 articles have potential for expansion as separate articles; and if the topics are discrete. It seems there is overlap and need for context (plus a bit of duplication).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not voting because I'm not a regular Wikipedian (beyond spelling/grammar corrections) but I would not object to this merge as long as "cancel culture" is still mentioned and defined. It probably isn't important enough to need its own page. Equinox ◑ 03:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support All three should be defined clearly though. There seems to be a pretty clear consensus here that "cancel" cannot exist without either the "outrage" or the "call-out", they are part of the one cultural phenomenon. This discussion has been open for more than 30 days now, so I'm gonna go ahead and merge the pages. Bacondrum (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Segments in the Reception Section

Seeing as the reception section (in its current state) is just a collection of article support by different authors, would we want to consider separating that into "positive" and "critical" reception? It could help future Wikipedia authors with mapping where their contributions might fit best (assuming they are adding more journal or news article support) Btorszag (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted all of that section, it's like an endless newsfeed of opinion, many by people with no particular expertise in any related field. This page should describe the phenomena and read like an encyclopedic entry, not list its detractors and supporters and their opinions. Bacondrum (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe a summary of the key points from the Reception section should be put back, using only the most reliable sources, having minimal quotes, and respecting WP:UNDUE. This is an article about a social media phenomenon, so it seems that the views of reliable sources on this phenomenon would help the reader. Bacondrum mentioned "undue" in the edit summary where the section was removed, which I assume to be a reference to WP:UNDUE, the policy on undue weight. The policy says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The policy appears to support having the views of the most reliable sources (e.g., Jonathan Haidt, David Brooks) in the article. I believe we should add the reliably sourced content back to the article. Bacondrum said in an edit summary that some of the sources that were deleted were not "notable". The WP:Notability policy is about whether there should be an article on a person or concept. There is no requirement that a source be herself or himself notable under WP guidelines.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I strongly disagree - pages have a reception section for subjects like films, books, speeches etc, but generally not cultural phenomena...you could have a criticism section, but even there I'm not 100% behind it. The problem is the phenomena is what it is, it's the commentary around it that is highly debatable and mostly opinion, if we start listing opinions where do we stop? when I came to the page it read like a far-right lunatic was having a rant about leftists that some leftists had later added more opinion to counter that - it was an unreadable dogs breakfast. I personally think the pop cultural references section should be cut too. The opinions that were expressed in the reception section seemed completely random, a director, a fiction author, a postgrad student...it was madness. The page is about a phenomena, it should be concise, clear and accurate, not rambling lists of opinion about who said what or thinks this about this that or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You said if we start adding opinions on the topic, where do we stop. Well, there are ways we can negotiate limits. For example, we could start with a single paragraph on criticism. It would describe the main viewpoints in the most reliable sources. As you know, the concept of "reliable source" in Wikipedia refers both to the reliability of the author and of the publisher (e.g., does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking). So we could determine, say, on call-out culture and cancel culture, that there are, say, three main viewpoints (A, B, C). Then examples of reliable source authors who are published in reliable source publications could be mentioned. A strong case of an author for inclusion would be the comments made by writers such as David Brooks (commentator) in the New York Times. As per your points about sources, I agree that a student journalist writing in a university newspaper (Note to readers: I previously added sources from university newspapers) is not likely to be less reliable, as the student author is not yet a professional journalist and nor is the university student-editor. Re: your comments on "having a rant"...I think there were too many quotes in previous versions, which inject too much emotion into the writing. As such, I propose that any criticism section be mostly paraphrase and summary.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Neologism template

Added neologiam template, this is a neologism and the sources are all primary. Hopefully it can be improved. Bacondrum (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources, op-eds and notability

I've edited this page down to a paragraph basically, because the article as it was contained mostly primary sources - op-eds - and these were mostly authored by people in completely unrelated fields, with no expertise on the subject. I may have missed something, but the page did not read like an encyclopedic entry and the citations were completely inappropriate, across the board. I'd like feedback about sources and the page in general, I personally think the page should be deleted or merged, failing that it should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinion, cited with opinion pieces. Other editors want to reinstate the assertions backed by op-eds, I think these assertions, based on op-eds are opinion 100% POV and should not be published here. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RSE on pop culture - [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Emphasis mine.

Also, per WP:RSOPINION - Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

The New York Times is a reliable source, so are CBC Radio, Vice and the other sources in the article. You can correct a single line and criticize it for not attributing the opinion to the author, or you can find a more accurate description by a more reliable source, and correct that. But please refrain from purging the entire article. Alex.osheter (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Alex.osheter's comment. Bacondrum's deletions were unwarranted and not in line with Wikipedia's reliable source policies. DeRossitt (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

They're all op-eds. They can only be used for quotes from the author. None of the op-eds are authored by people with relevant expertise. Come on, the article read like a rant and was completely un-encyclopedic. Expand the article by all means...with reliable, relevant citations, not a roll call of random opinions. Do not reinstate op-eds and related assertions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I get some uninvolved editors to look at the content and citations: @MrX: @StAnselm: @Laterthanyouthink: @Boscaswell: I've edited this page down to a paragraph basically, because the article as it was contained mostly primary sources - op-eds - and these were mostly authored by people in completely unrelated fields, with no expertise on the subject, it read terribly and contained a lot of opinion. I believe the article should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinions, cited with op-eds. Other editors want to reinstate the assertions backed by op-eds, I think these assertions, based on op-eds are opinion, 100% POV and should not be published here. So I was hoping you could give us some feed back? Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you are edit warring. Please stop. You're undoing a lot of excellent contributions to this article, and you've cut the great majority of the text that was extensive and well-supported, and you are vandalizing it based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. No, the article did NOT read like a rant. You took an article that was over 50,000 bytes and reduced it to ~2500 bytes, extreme deletions that should have been discussed among the many contributors. This is why we have talk pages. The article needs to be restored to the shape it was in on 01:48, 2 May 2019 ‎(link to that version). -- DeRossitt (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, you are also edit warring, That's why I'm asking for a third opinion from experienced and uninvolved editors. The article was the worst I've seen to date. It did read like a personal rant and an article cannot rely on almost entirely primary sources. It should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinion that relies entirely on op-eds (which are merely opinion, and are primary sources...and these primary sources were seemingly selected at random and authored by people with no particular expertise on the subject, music critics, fashion editors etc). Even the 2500 byte version I left was relying entirely on three primary sources. Not good enough. Bacondrum (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: does have a point. There are many names cited as in “Fred says/writes” who are unknown, could not be wikilinked, and there’s no mention of who they write for - they could be anyone. Further, towards the end of the 2nd para it says “widespread usage”. This term is not defined, whereas such a term needs to be. I’d not once heard of the term that the article is talking about anyway, and I haven’t got my head stuck firmly in the sand.

I’m sure that the article is very interesting, but it reads like a rambling magazine article and not an article in an encyclopaedia. I feel that those who insist that this vast piece of an article must be left as it is should perhaps reflect on what I wrote in my last sentence, rather than get over-excited by edit wars and the “s/he’s wrong and I’m right!” line of thinking that can result. Let’s face it, it doesn’t read like a good concise Wikipedia article. Such an article should be written with the aim in mind of making it straightforward for the reader to get right to the point, to be informed in a non-opinionated fashion, easily, without too much effort. As it stands, I regret that this article fails badly. Boscaswell talk 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that some parts were written by unknown sources from unknown publications, and those should be removed but with a great deal of caution. Definitely not in the manner Bacondrum chose to do it. This version seems okay right now, but could be improved. Unfortunately, there is no reliable source that could define what the term is, not one that I could find. Best we can do, is adhere to Wikipedia's WP:RSOPINION guidelines. If @Bacondrum: can find one, that would be greatly appreciated. We have a sourced definition of cancel culture, but not one for call-out culture. I'll add a few comments to the article which will only be visible when editing, and instead of purging the article again, let's simply discuss which parts should be improved. Okay? Alex.osheter (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The page is about a neologism and since "there is no reliable source that could define what the term is" it should be deleted. Bacondrum (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much of anything about this subject. My only comment is that many of the sources in the previous version seemed to be low quality sources. - MrX 🖋 21:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that an AfD has been opened, I would move to end this RfC, which honestly should have been a deletion nomination instead of an RfC from the get-go. (Summoned by bot) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources - op-eds

In the name of compromise I suggest that editors who claim to have secondary sources please add them. All primary sources and associated assertions need to be removed unless citing a quote from the author. Then perhaps we can have a reasoned argument about keeping the content based on reliable, non-POV, secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Those who want to keep this page, please improve the article by adding secondary sources. An article about a neologism cannot be based on primary sources, this is not simply my opinion, read the guidelines about neologisms. I believe the page should be deleted, but failing that it must be improved, none of the citations pass muster, not one, they are all primary sources, every single one, some by fashion editors and music bloggers, people with no expertise in any related field. Bacondrum (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the following: Wikipedia:NORUSH, Wikipedia:Don't declare ultimatums. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've learnt my lesson. Besides, the page has improved that much from when I first read the thing - it's now readable, there are some quality secondary sources and the extreme bias has been removed. When I first came to it it was all but a not so subtle attack rant about feminists and leftists. I'm just happy it's not been restored to that extremely biased dogs breakfast. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, it does not appear you’ve learned your lesson. You’re back again with the tendentious editing. I will take this up with formal dispute resolution if you keep it up. DeRossitt (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I am still alowed to edit mate, I learnt my lesson and will not edit war. I still believe this page contains claims that are cited with absolute rubbish, like fashion op-eds. It's improved but it's still pretty average and the Cancel Culture bit is barely readable. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, mate, of course you're allowed to edit, but you are deleting material that is well-sourced. There were good sources in the "cancel culture" material you deleted. I really think you should read the links that were suggested to you above ("no rush," etc.) because there's very good advice there. You have a tendency to come in here, deleting tons of stuff that is well-sourced, and act like it's urgent to get the article up to your standards that, at least in my view, are not really well-founded. There is no rush. There's no reason why you can't start a discussion on the talk page and come back in a month or two. Best wishes, DeRossitt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You say it was well sourced, but it wasn't, it was a bunch of unreliable primary sources being used to cite statements of fact, lists of quotes form random people with no relevant expertise, it failed to define the subject and whole paragraphs that were incomprehensible. The article still rambles, particularly the "cancel culture" section which barely makes any sense and tries three times to define the subject, but fails to actually do so. I personally had never heard of the term and was genuinely interested in learning about it, but I was shocked to see a borderline incomprehensible opinion, rambling opinion, cited with opinion, basically a highly partisan, anti-left rant about how horrible feminists and civil rights activists are. The article should define and describe the term, it's getting there now, but the "Cancel culture" section is a mess and only one assertion is properly cited. Bacondrum (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jonah Engel Bromwich

Okay, so the page is incomparably better than it was when I first read it. I can see a number of secondary sources in the refs now, quality secondary sources. I also accept that the page doesn't warrant deletion. However, claims cited with op eds by this Jonah Engel Bromwich fellow in particular are not acceptable. The citation is an opinions piece, and worse still he has no expertise in the field what-so-ever, not even a vaguely related field, he is a fashion and style writer. Come on, it's pathetic, first year arts students stoned out of their minds would know better than to use that as a citation for term or neologism - his opinion really shouldn't be cited for any subject other than fashion. I'll leave it there, but we should be aiming for a quality article, not a hodge-podge of op-ed quotes. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a hobbyhorse to you and once again you should read the links suggested to you above, this time the one concerning ultimatums. You do not have the authority to decree that a certain source is "unacceptable." If the New York Times published a piece by Jonah Engel Bromwich about cancel culture, your opinion about whether he is an "authority on cancel culture" is not the last word here. The New York Times is a better arbiter of Bromwich as a writer on cancel culture than you. You are also calling things "opinion" pieces that are not opinion pieces. There are many "lifestyle" pieces that discuss trends and so forth, and may be written in a light style, that are not opinion pieces. Furthermore, there are pieces that may fairly be called opinion pieces but they contain enough "reporting" that they are suitable sources. Your black-and-white categorizing of pieces based on your own spurious decree of whether they are "opinion pieces," "written by a fashion writer," etc., as if those pieces are by definition not suitable sources, is abusive and not supported by policy. There is no policy barring someone who has written on fashion being cited as a source here, please let me know if I have missed it. Furthermore, your tone in some of these discussions is disrespectful of other editors' work: "first year students stoned out of their minds," "pathetic," "FFS! (in one of your edit summaries) is disrespectful and uncalled for. Be more respectful of the efforts of other editors. DeRossitt (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

He writes fashion op-eds. I can read, the citation is clearly an opinions piece. I don't decide that it is unacceptable, Wikipedia does. The sources should be secondary sources for a statement of fact, in regards to an obscure neologism - preferably academic. In the cases where it is acceptable to cite an op-ed the citation should relate to the authors own words, not statements of fact, the author should have relevant expertise - the use of this particular op-ed on this particular subject doesn't come close to meeting the requirements, surely you can see that. Ill try to be more respectful. Bacondrum (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"There is no policy barring someone who has written on fashion being cited as a source here, please let me know if I have missed it" okay: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." Here's a link to the guideline. The poor quality of this citation is reflected in the sections which rely on it, IMO. Bacondrum(talk) 02:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I want to be respectful, but there's some serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source Bacondrum (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to remove the piped links as per the guidelines? And this incomprehensible bit of weirdness: "#CancelCulture" and "#CalloutCulture" are popular hashtags on social media.[citation needed]" It makes no sense. I know American English is different to Australian English, but they are mutually intelligible and I can't make sense of this first paragraph.

Can you or someone else please just pick one quote describing Cancel Culture, it's beyond confusing having three descriptions?

There is nothing wrong with having three different definitions, particularly as they are overlapping definitions. Bromwich writes about culture so the fact he writes about fashion is not a reason not to consider him an expert on this topic. Op-Eds are considered primary sources in general, however in this case we're looking to a definition of the phenomenon and examples of it - in this regard the piece is more in the way of an analytical report. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a term not a phenomenon, and it has a meaning, not infinite meanings. This is the reason statements of fact cannot rely on op-eds. Gah! Bacondrum (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You might benefit from pausing to consider why it is that your efforts on this page and on the Outrage porn page have not been met with significant levels of disagreement from previously-uninvolved editors. Particularly, your position is often that of setting an ultimatum for "improving the page", when actually you're the one who is supposed to do this if you are the one who sees a problem - and if other editors disagree with what you want to do they you are supposed to discuss it and try to reach a consensus position. Anyone who knows anything knows there can be more than one definition of what a phenomenon includes. The number of definitions is not infinite, which is fine because we're not trying to include infinite numbers of definitions here, but there is no problem with providing more than one. Your point about op-eds is a non-sequitur - there is no relation between the number of definitions and the source of these definitions. Indeed, the academic references relied on here also provide more than one definition (compare Munro and Berube). FOARP (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So, it has endless possible meaning? Jesus wept. It's a term not a phenomenon. You might benefit from actually working towards an encyclopedic article. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Anyone who knows anything knows" Dick Cheney, is that you? Too funny. Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can't see why your insult-people-and-set-ultimatums editing style isn't creating better outcomes for you, I can't help you. No, three overlapping definitions very clearly is not "endless". Yes, it is a cultural phenomenon and not simply a "term" (as determined at AFD - this is not just a WP:DICDEF since the references provide examples). Try creating a consensus in favour of what you want to do rather than berating everyone - and if you can't, just move on to a different topic. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You've hardly been polite, mate. I just want the article to be clear and encyclopedic, to use reliable sources etc. Like I said: You might benefit from actually working towards an encyclopedic article rather than insisting on a paragraph that is barely readable and makes several statements of fact that rely entirely on primary source. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

NO Op-eds or other opinions, fashion editors, film directors and students, fiction writers, or academics in completely unrelated fields

I'm going to be watching this page closely. It should describe the phenomena, it's history and context. No POV, partisan, left or right edits. It's not a soap box for supporters and detractors. Claims made on a contentious page like this need to be rock solid, not cherry picked or based on primary source or sources authored by people with no real relevance or expertise on the subject. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6]" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations This page was a dogs breakfast, of the highest order. Bacondrum (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I believe your way of thinking about POV is not in line with Wikipedia policy. According to the WP:NPOV policy, we can add sources who have a point of view (POV) on a certain topic, subject to certain conditions. The POV of the source should be made clear (they give examples like "According to the conservative economist Sue Smith,..."). The NPOV policy says that you have to include all the majority viewpoints on the topic. You seem to wish to exclude all the viewpoints, including those published in reliable sources such as The New York Times. As well, both here on this talk page ("no...expertise on the subject") and in your edit summaries, you have stated that authors cited do not have expertise. If this was an article on quantum physics, then one might expect most of the cited authors to have PhDs in quantum physics. However, this is a social media phenomena, so the range of people who will write about it is wider, and could include a range of fields. Regarding your quote from Wikipedia policy on editorial commentary and op-eds, I think what that is saying is that I can't say "The melting point of quontonium [fictional mineral] is 112 degrees (source: Op-ed opinion article called "My theories on the melting point of quontonium" in New York Times). In that example, to indicate the melting point of a mineral, I should cite a scientific paper. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece written by an "economist" doesn't meet said "certain conditions". Unrelated field of expertise and a primary source being used as a source relating to statements of fact - not a suitable source by any measure. Primary sources (ie op-eds) are only acceptable sources for quotes from the author. There are rare exceptions when a person has very particular expertise, so an op ed by an academic specialising in online social/cultural phenomena might be usable, but not an op ed by a fashion editor or an economist, as their fields have absolutely no relevance to the subject. If they have no expertise in the field, it's an unqualified opinion and thus totally unsuitable. Op-ed citations authored by fashion editors, film directors and students, fiction writers, or academics in completely unrelated fields are completely unacceptable, no ifs no buts. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rolling commentary, a blog, a list of opinions or a news feed. This article was a rambling hodge podge of opinions, that is not what a wikipedia article should be, . This page failed on all accounts. This article should be expanded, but not to include the dogs breakfast of unqualified opinion that it was. Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with OnBeyondZebrax on this. This page is about a social phenomena. The primary source for a social phenomena, is anyone who is familiar with said phenomena. When dealing with scientific phenomena, we have research and models - based on reliable sources (research papers) we can describe the phenomena. But this isn't a scientific phenomena, this is a social one. It's our culture. Culture is defined by its adherents. So if you have a notable number of people doing something, it's part of that group's culture. We can specify the POV of certain reliable sources on the subject, and provide examples. See: WP:RSOPINION You can read more about reliable sources here. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see your point, the primary source for a social phenomena, should be social science papers and news articles, not random opinions. Shall we list every opinion on any subject, hell, lets just write an article based entirely on our own opinion. you can add endless reams of meandering opinion if you want, but the article should identify a notable topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, be written in an encyclopedic style of language, be well copy edited and contain references to reliable sources, I'm going to challenge anything less. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alex.osheter: An op ed by a fashion editor is a primary source from an expert in an unrelated field, it is not a reliable source for anything but his own words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• That is absolutely untrue. WP:RS applies to social phenomena just like anything else, and there are perfectly good academic and non-opinion news sources covering social topics. Bacondrum is entirely correct that this article relies too heavily on op-eds - we need to cut them down drastically. Articles should be based primarily on reputable secondary sources, not on opinion pieces; and the main use for opinion pieces, as WP:PRIMARY sources, is to cover the opinions of the author in a context where that author, themselves, is notable. Using opinion pieces to discuss the topic in general or to try and "convince" the reader is misusing them; and, by extension, all opinion pieces need to be from someone whose identity and opinion on the topic is, itself, notable (almost always because they are a subject-matter expert in the field.) Even such opinions by subject matter experts should only make up a small portion of the article, though. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Notice Board incident report involving this article

There is an Administrative Notice Board report (which can be found here) concerning Bacondrum's edits to this article. -- DeRossitt (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What for removing quotes that do not appear in the cited text, or making the cancel culture section clear and concise? Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think you need to tone it down. Bacondrum is entirely correct that this article relies far to heavily on primary opinion sources. If you want to improve it or avoid having it trimmed down to a stub, the best thing to is to look for better sources to replace the ones being removed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Class

Hi all! I'm in a graduate level class. I hope to research this topic and add more to it. I can see why people wanted to merge pages, as there are a lot of similar terms. I will look into this as well! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGONZAGA25 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, you could add content from merged page, I think that at the moment there is none, I just added one short paragraph. Good luck, here you can see material that was on merged page [4], pretty substantial.Sourcerery (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Article is about a phenomenon, not a "term"

This article is about a "set of behaviors, usually displayed on social media". The topic isn't about a term, or a dictionary definition. The set of behaviors actually has a few names. This is a wp:refers mistake. Volunteer1234 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. The term is most commonly used to refer to occurrences that at first defy explanation or baffle the observer. According to the Dictionary of Visual Discourse, "In ordinary language 'phenomenon/phenomena' refer to any occurrence worthy of note and investigation, typically an untoward or unusual event, person or fact that is of special significance or otherwise notable."

It's obviously a term, even if you want it to be something else, it is what it is...a term or a phrase. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apple is a term, but the apple article doesn't say that. You seem to be missing the point. Also the article lists 3 names for this phenomenon- Call-out culture, outrage culture and cancel culture. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Back to school. Apple is a word, not a term, a term is a specific kind of word or combination of words used to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study. A phenomenon, in common usage, refers to an extraordinary event, an untoward or unusual event, person or fact. But lets do this properly, and look to the citations (even though all but one or two are unreliable sources.

Of the citations used in the article, three clearly refer to the term, as a term. None refer to it as a phenomenon, none, nada, zilch, zero:

• https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2018/11/how-cancel-culture-attempted-silence-jamelia-and-kanye-west "The term is essentially a call to boycott someone"

The article is about the trend- "The latest person to fall victim to this trend..." It is not about the victims of a term.Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html"An early example of the term’s rise: In a 2016 episode of the web series “Joanne the Scammer,” the title character struggles to use an espresso machine, then declares the entire enterprise to be canceled."

This article is about the term "cancelled", it doesn't even mention "call-out culture" Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/blog/have-we-hit-peak-cancel-culture-1.4944521 "There's a term commonly used on social media when it's decided that somebody or something is no longer worthy of public support — they are "cancelled.""

This article also doesn't mention "call-out culture"

for the love of all that is good, work towards an encyclopedic entry, not your opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

One of your references is about a trend, the other two don't even mention the term "call-out culture" that you say they are defining. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I feel it's definitely an article about neologism; the term hasn't been around long enough to have a concrete existence. It seems tricky to find sources discussing its history as a term, though (I'm having trouble even coming up with who coined it or, at least, where it was coined.) At the very least, if we were going to cover it as a phenomenon, we'd need more and higher-quality academic sources going into detail on it as such - "here's something a bunch of opinion pieces talked about in 2015-2019" isn't really the sourcing we can use for a "phenomenon", since with that level of sourcing we're unable to use them to really say anything about it beyond "a bunch of people used this term, and here's what they thought about it." --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

which neologism? Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Cancel Culture and Call-out culture are neologisms, or newly coined terms. They are both terms, even the names of actual phenomena are described as terms such as foo fighters and lunar effect. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying the article topic is about defining two different terms? Those other articles have wp:refers problems too. (I'm moving on since this isn't going anywhere)Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

Not sure we should have a section like this because:

1) This entire page is about popular culture

2) This kind of section quickly becomes just a list of trivia.

What do you think? FOARP (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I think it shows the impact it is having on media and satire. That's not what entire page is about, also it's from "Cancel culture" article that has been merged yet contains no material from that page. Think we need to import more on this page.Sourcerery (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "In popular culture" usually means "depictions of this in entertainment media" so the South Park refs are ok. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree FOARP, it's undue, the subject is a pop culture neologism. If it's going to be kept, a two sentence section does not warrant six citations, cut it down to one or two, maybe three, that cover the claims being made. Bacondrum (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

BRD

Sourcerery I have two reverts on this article, not three. The first one. And the one where I pointed out that you were yet again ignoring WP:BRD. Please stop these edit warring tactics. You've popped up all over my watchlist this last day and in every case you're either engaging in WP:GREENCHEESE style debating at talk or you're going right to the edge of the edit war bright line to push preferred edits back into articles. In this case, I raised legitimate concerns regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH - your sources are low quality to establish cancel culture applies in these contexts. And yet you ignore my WP:BRD warning and then accuse me of breaking WP:3RR when I am at two reverts. Two edits with no intervening edit by a third party do not constitute two independent reversions.Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me and you, this is about article and content, why are you so hung up on me I don't know. I assume you think I'm fascist or something similar since you said I'm denying Holocaust or something like that. Sources are good, people are notable there are plenty of more canceled youtubers and other famous people so it doesn't fall under Indiscriminate. Focus on topics and don't assume things, especially bad ones. It's obvious you have personal problem, problem is not with content, problem is that I was the one adding it. Please stop acting like this or I will have to seek some kind of arbitration or interaction ban.Sourcerery (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is about an article on my watch list which is now spilling over with fancruft and an indiscriminate list of random C-list celebrities. The fact this represents a pattern of behaviour bears mention only inasfar as to point out this is not the only article at which I'm having this problem with your editing behaviour, and I advise you to change course. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah right, funny how you didn't revert it when it was originally added, the "fancruft" part [5]. Calling it fancruft is considered uncivil as is accusing someone for Holocaust denial [6]. For "pattern of behavior" you can talk to administrators and if I encounter accusations from you again I will.Sourcerery (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm this is also on my watchlist so have been looking... I do notice the merge tag above from cancel culture. It also seems that most of those people were also mentioned in the same sources that term it "cancel culture" so those are not necessarily indiscriminately chosen. I'm not sure about if every source should be used however, some seem to be opinion pieces like the nytimes one for Goldberg. It does use "Cancel" but this one is not mentioned by the other general sources I think? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus that "called out" usually leads to being "canceled" [7] in other words calling out is precursor to canceling, that's why it was merged. Will look up Kirsten and general improvement of this article, was hoping this Class project will do it and they said they have interest in topic so don't want to alter it too much during this period.Sourcerery (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that additions like this are generally not useful to readers. Simply compiling situations where the term was used doesn't say anything use and risks WP:SYNTH in terms of how they're selected and included; it ends up just turning into a big unwieldy list. Things should only be included when there's secondary non-opinion sourcing indicating that they're important to understanding the topic; and even then, they should be placed in the appropriate section for discussion to their relationship to the larger topic, not in a giant list of every place the term was ever used in a way editors here feel are interesting. (Also, a merge decided elsewhere doesn't determine content at the "target" page - anything to be added has to obtain consensus here, if a policy-based objection to it is raised.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to be extra careful considering WP:BLP implications (and this may serve as example to the students as well). @Sourcerery: it's easy to see that you're not the original author and this can also happen to me when I merge altmed related articles: material on a barely noticed article suddenly appears on another one and can more easily be noticed and contested. Thanks for working on the merge, —PaleoNeonate – 03:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong disagree with Aquillions notion that this is not useful to readers, since it illustrates the topic.Sourcerery (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all undue, why stop at the people mentioned in the list of cancelled C-list celebrity's, why not have a rolling, endless list of people, picked at random, who've been "cancelled"? Lists like this are problematic, to say the least. As for South Park, why list that at all? Shall we start a list of every show, book or article that addresses the subject? Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Even "call out culture" is questionable, but if it's a notable term... People have been fired, called to resign, excommunicated, shunned, flamed, denounced, etc, everywhere for a long time. —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a popular culture trend you may find the terms being applied to situations that are not unique from ones in the past. However since it is a popular concept, the only context for its meaning is popular culture, so if there is going to be an article at all it is going to need to address the specific and notable cases that give rise to the terminology. I think we would be applying special rules to this article if we said that the only thing that could be included were secondary sources describing cancel/callout culture qua cancel/callout culture rather than examples of its use. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and certainly doesn't need to be an aggregation of the sort of half-baked tabloid-style entertainment "journalism" that often focuses on so or so being "cancelled" on Twitter. If we want to address this cultural phenomenon, we should lean directly into secondary sources. And we certainly should avoid trivia such as, "this tired comedy show that was briefly relevant in the late 1990s doesn't like it." Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree on half-baked tabloid journalism, they should not be considered WP:RS, and agree about a trivia list. On the other hand, if the NYT, WaPo, HuffPost and the Guardian (for example, not saying it is likely) all covered a major instance of cancelling in ongoing coverage, what policy provides for excluding it from an article? It would potentially be DUE, RS'd and not NEWS, right? Going for an extreme hypothetical to set some boundaries. I don't think coverage must be about "call out culture" in general rather than a major instance of "call out culture", but if so, I am happy to hear why. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize my interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is far stricter than average - I think that Wikipedia is far too reliant on newsmedia in general as a source and it should not be. However I'd suggest the question here would be whether the journalists in question have relevant expertise to identify a legitimate case of cancel culture or if they're just throwing around buzzwords because their editor told them to cool it calling everything "in the era of #metoo". Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor I think the article should cover the subject clearly and carefully and should not descend into a hodge-podge of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info, lists etc and WP:SYNTH assertions, cited with sources of dubious merit and/or unreliable sources, as it has in the past. The subject is controversial, the term is used derogatorily and thrown around in a highly partisan left/right manner - this was reflected in the dogs breakfast that this article once was, a tit for tat of POV edits. If the article is "going to need to address the specific and notable cases that give rise to the terminology" then the cases should be limited to those that have received widespread coverage and be indisputably notable, not a meandering list random examples - if the only sources cited are primary then the subject is obviously not sufficiently noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 and Aquillion Your comments on this article are spot on IMO. It's a page about a new term, the page should describe the term in an objective manner. A single example of it's use may be warranted, maybe two, but certainly not episodes of South Park and certainly not "an aggregation of the sort of half-baked tabloid-style entertainment "journalism" that often focuses on so or so being "cancelled" on Twitter". I reckon describing the term as a phenomenon is plain crazy, it's clearly a term. Bacondrum (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Poor sources, rolling coverage of random and unqualified opinions

I've said this before, and I may be wrong, but some of the quotes and citations on this page are still dubious at best, undue or completely unreliable:

• I believe this opinions piece by fashion writer Jonah Bromich should not be used in the article. First off, who is he? Second, it's a primary source. Third, he is no expert on neologisms or sociology or any related subject...unless writing about Dolce and Gabbana qualifies you as a social sciences expert. So, I believe these sections should be removed, as they rely on his words alone - "Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, described cancel culture as a "cultural boycott" adding that "when you deprive someone of your attention, you're depriving them of a livelihood." and "New York Times fashion writer Jonah Engel Bromwich defines cancel culture as "total disinvestment in something (anything)", often for "transgressing fans' expectations". According to Bromwich, being "cancelled" may lead to the literal cancellation of events and programs. Bill O'Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Roseanne Barr have all had shows cancelled as a result of being "called-out" and "canceled"". I'd support keeping professor Lisa Nakamura's section if we can find a reliable source for the quote, alas I've not been able to find a single other source for the quote.
• Who is Canadian journalist, Connor Garel? An occasional op-ed writer for Vice? I did a google search, he appears to have penned a couple of op-eds, that's it. So, I believe this should go too. "Canadian journalist, Connor Garel described cancel culture as a "makeshift digital contract wherein people loosely agree not to support a person (especially economically) in order to somehow deprive them of their livelihood"."
• As with the above two opinions/op-eds by irrelevant authors with no particular expertise in the subject: Who is Jesse Kinos-Goodin? A blogger and music writer. What pray tell does music have to do with neologisms? Nothing. So, this too should go - "Jesse Kinos-Goodin, writing in the CBC Radio blog, says that he believes the term to have originated on Black Twitter, saying that it been used since 2015, with widespread usage of the expression beginning in 2018"
• David Brooks, who is he? A partisan right-wing commentator. This too should go "David Brooks of The New York Times has called call-out culture naïve, criticized it for being polarizing and for lacking due process and a route for redemption, and that it reminded him of "the way students denounced and effectively murdered their elders for incorrect thought during Mao's Cultural Revolution and in Stalin's Russia"" Comparing a neologism to the horrors of Stalin's Russia or the Cultural Revolution is extreme hyperbole, no better than comparing it to the holocaust - this is not a reasonable, considered or measured opinion. It's like we are just running rolling news coverage regarding who said what about this that and the other.

I've gotten in enough trouble trying to remove fancruft and opinion from this article...So what do you folks think Simonm223, PaleoNeonate and Aquillion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So basically you want to remove all the content from the article and leave two feminism sources? Two feminism sources do not do much to establish WP:GNG. Why not just AfD the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a neologism about ten seconds old; there's a valid case that WP:TOOSOON might actually apply here. I'm not pushing for an AfD; but stubbing the article until it becomes clear if any experts actually weigh in on the term isn't the worst idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because journalists think a term is hot on Twitter right now doesn't make it encyclopedically relevant. Let me know when bell hooks or, hell, Zuleyka Zevallos or N.K. Jemisin even weighs in on the term and its relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223I agree wholeheartedly that "Just because journalists think a term is hot on Twitter right now doesn't make it encyclopedically relevant". I would like to see a quality article, so all the opinions, op-eds and related assertions should be removed, music bloggers, occasional Vice commentators and fashion writers should go. David Brooks is not completely irrelevant, but why am I reading about Mao and Stalin here? This particular opinions piece is a hyperbolic, partisan primary source and therefor it should also be removed IMO. This would leave us with a small, accurate, well cited, and encyclopedic article written from a neutral point of view. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering half the article relies on primary sources of dubious merit, I would support stubbing the article until if/when more experts actually weigh in. There are currently 4 secondary sources of varying quality and 4 primary sources...the primary sources should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's actually reading like the beginnings of an encyclopedic entry now. Happy days. Bacondrum (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 11:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks much improved now; thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've removed remaining primary sources as they are citing statements of fact and primary sources are not reliable sources for anything other than the authors own words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

These were being used as comments (not statements of fact) that were properly attributed. There is no primary source data being used. I don't understand your objection. -Darouet (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not properly attributed, because it's a fashion writers opinion that she said these things, that's a statement of fact from a primary source, isn't it? Bacondrum (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, why did you remove the Lisa Nakamura bit? You’ve made such a big deal about getting this article to your satisfaction and carving out huge chunks of it, and that Nakamura stuff has been in the article the whole time! Now you’re removing it? Seriously, what are you thinking? DeRossitt (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Because another editor pointed out that it is a quote by a third party from a primary source. Bacondrum (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nakamura is probably ok, but the other one wasn't (that I could see) present in two of the sources, neither of which mentioned unpersoning directly. The one source that mentioned it was the prospect magazine opinion piece, by someone with no relevant expertise or reputation; and even then, it's just a semi-humorous rhetorical aside. (These fights are about who is allowed to exist—and who becomes what the Stalinists used to call an “unperson.”) I don't think that that justifies the much more aggressive wording we were using in the article - they're not literally saying it is like unpersoning - but either way it seems a bit WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that the Nakamura quote is okay, I mean she is an authority but Jonah is not, it's a claim by a third party in an opinions piece. I don't reckon that counts as an RS. I've searched for the direct quote and can't find it, so we are relying on a fashion writers opinion. I don't reckon that cuts the mustard personally. There doesn't seem to be even a basic standard here, I mean why are we talking about Stalinism again, this is extreme hyperbole. Bacondrum (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"problematic" - replace with "offensive?"

Certainly there's a better word to use here. "problematic?" No, it's because it's "offensive" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4B80:2D1:81AA:C59F:E275:C6B4 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• support, indeed problematic sounds weasily.Bacondrum (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add deplatforming as a see also?

Davystole (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I have replaced No Platform, which is specific to UK, with Deplatforming. --MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "cancel culture" becoming the more common term for it?

Davystole (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What do reliable academic sources say? Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Who cares; if we can get the cabal on our side, we can make the article say whatever we want Davystole (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

'Cancel culture' seems to be the vastly more common term, including the one most news publications use. Either the article should be renamed or if 'call-out culture' or 'cancel culture' are substantially different they should be split. MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

'Cancel Culture' is the most common term, however 'call-out culture' is not different, just a different name.

A cursory Google search certainly seems to support "cancel culture" as being the common term for the phenomenon. "Call-out culture" does have hits, but the first page is a scattering of articles from the last four years or so, with none that I spotted from later than January 2019. "Cancel culture," on the other hand, has a slew of articles and videos from the last two weeks alone. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

Is this section worth including in the page? If so, I can rearrange stuff a bit. - Sridc (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Generally criticism sections are frowned upon within Wikipedeia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it'd be a nightmare - just asking for people to grind an axe. Bacondrum (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Obama's view

@Simonm223 - Your reasons for removing Obama's view makes no sense to me. Obama is not a specialist in racism either, and yet Racism includes his observations ("dog whistle racism"). What is the precise objection exactly? I disagree that Obama's disapproval is a trivia; when he spoke out several media outlets (all reliable sources) talked about it, in reference to call-out culture. This article is already rather short, so removing this makes little sense. - Sridc (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Call-out culture is not just about racism, and I don't see Obama's view as being useful beyond being just another old rich man shouting at clouds. He's WP:UNDUE - believe it or not most non-Americans don't give a whittle for the opinions of former US presidents about culture. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you want to ping somebody (please use sparingly) just use {{ping|username}}. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's cruft. Where does one stop, perhaps Jay-z has something to say about the subject, maybe Jeff Goldblum thinks its the coolest thing since pickled artichokes? Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Cancelled people coming together

NYTimes recently published an article talking about a bunch of former "cancelled" people, and their supporters. If anyone is looking for ideas to expand this wiki page, this article has some pointers: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html - Sridc (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Kind of crufty tho. The question should be not, "is this connected to the topic in some way," but rather, "is this relevant to an encyclopedia entry on the topic. And much like the opinions of retired politicians, the existence of a support group for people who had to log off twitter is hardly encyclopedically relevant just because the NYT had column inches to fill. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of that article, yes. But one fact -- that the "cancelled" are being counselled by a notable person -- stood out, and I think it should be included. Otherwise it would not be obvious at all. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, your phrase "people who had to log off twitter" kind of indicates that you don't understand this topic very well. Cancelling can result in losing jobs, professional stand and even becoming homeless (all verified facts). - Sridc (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just came across this new piece of info from Alice's twitter https://twitter.com/AliceDreger/status/1190771089070317569?s=20 where she says that she had counselled people who were "attacked", but that she seriously doubts that she dealt with the cancelled per se. So I've removed my edit. - Sridc (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CRUFT of the highest order. We're not here to promote the use of the word, discuss it or make lists of people who've said something about it. Bacondrum (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been moved back over to cancel culture?

I don't understand. I see that it was proposed the two articles be merged, however in the months after the merge this article has only dramatically decreased in size. I suppose this may be related to the merge in some way. As this very talk page points out, cancel culture is the most commonly used term. Call-out culture should be the redirect, no? TurretBot (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem with neologisms. Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article, if this warrants an article at all (I'd probably err on it not warranting an article at this point). Is it cancel culture or call-out culture? Is it more than a 5 second neologism that passed it's used by date 2 seconds in? or is it a social media fart not worthy of mention? Or a "hot word" for half-rate journo's that was relevant for all of half a millisecond? What ever it is there needs to be more than a few reliable sources - even more so the subject/content needs to be due. Bacondrum (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"however in the months after the merge this article has only dramatically decreased in size." -- Hmm, really? Do you have a link to the old page that was larger in size before the merge? - Sridc (talk) 01:30 4 November 2019 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Call-out_culture&oldid=896196916 - Sridc (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Better link: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cancel_culture&diff=895110207&oldid=894426523 - Sridc (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I'm not satisfied with the opening paragraph. According to who is call-out culture "a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions"? I checked the reference which talkes about 'cancel culture' - but it makes no mention of 'holding individuals and groups accountable' (in fact, there is not even a mention of words "accountable" or "accountability") - so I'm inclined to rephrase that part. - Sridc (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest it would be very wise to propose revisions to the lede at talk first and build a consensus before revising. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I propose. Given that "cancel culture" and "call-out culture" refer to the same thing (no media outlets make any distinction between two), and that the current source, thenextweb, in the opening paragraph makes no mention of accountability, let's remove the paragraph entirely and thereby promote the next paragraph (which I just edited, citing better sources) to be the opening paragraph. That second paragraph is a better synopsis anyway. - Sridc (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an improvement, thanks. We can leave out the loaded language like "a violation of today's social justice norms" and "thrust out of social or professional circles". The cited source is borderline as it is an opinions piece - I just found an op ed from New Republic that claims cancel culture is made up and they make a convincing argument stating that: "“cancel culture” seems to be the name mediocrities and legends on their way to mediocrity have given their own waning relevance." We are not here to push a partisan view of the thing, you can't blame it on "social justice warriors" here, we should use more cautious language. People of all political persuasions have called for sackings over offensive comments. Removed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND. And moved citation to end of sentence. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The cited source, NYTimes, is a reliable source. The verbatim quote referenced is not an opinion, rather a description (by a reliable source) of what 'cancel culture' is. Re: "a violation of today's social justice norms" - this is not an opinion; most instances of 'canceling' are done in violation of one social justice norm or the other (typically accusations of sexism or racism). Re: ""thrust out of social or professional circles"" - once again not an opinion; it is a report of what 'canceling' entails, as can be verified in each individual case. In regards to the newrepublic I don't see it being listed as a reliable source (in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for example). While I'm aware that 'canceling' is not an exclusive domain of what you dub to be 'social justice warriors' (btw, please don't accuse me of "blaming it on social justice warriors" or anything of that ilk henceforth), you are welcome to provide a reliable source that describes 'cancel culture' as dealing also with violation of other norms other than social justice. - Sridc (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is just an opinion, one you share, but many others do not. Other reliable sources use less bias language as should we. Really, an op ed is not good enough as a citation for such a claim. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: your claims regarding "just an opinion" and "bias", I'll refer you to my previous comment. In regards to op ed being not good as citation, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." (emphasis mine), and the Forbe article's editor Evan Gerstmann, a former law practitioner, is a college professor and researcher who writes about "campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice" including a book titled "Campus Sexual Assault". - Sridc (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And your New Republic quote is unfit here in two ways: a) it talks about comedians (not general public). b) is more of a put-down by the author than an observation/report of 'cancel culture' as it happens. At best, it could be worth mentioning in the Description section, but certainly not in the introductory paragraph. - Sridc (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Writing about" something doesn't make them an expert; subject-matter expert here is meant in the WP:SPS sense, which has a much higher bar - they must be widely-recognized as an established expert in the field, not just someone with an interest in it. Otherwise, every talking head would pass WP:SPS. But even aside from that problem, it is grossly WP:UNDUE to structure the entire lead around a single opinion-piece, especially from such a minor figure, and it's completely unacceptable to present their opinion or interpretation as fact in the article voice. If what they're saying is true and not just their personal opinion, it should be easy to find a better source than this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion - about your revert - please read the discussion in this section. The text you effectively reinstated in your edit is much worse. The introductory statement uses "hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions" using a reference to thenextweb, yet there is no mention whatsoever of accountability. This reference has to go, and consequently the introductory paragraph, needs to be replaced with text that aligns with a reliable source. That's exactly what the second paragraph does. I tried my best to locate top two sources that would the most reliable source accepted here. See the discussion above. - Sridc (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If you thought that the Gerstmann source was usable, I suggest maybe slowing down? It is clearly not usable - it probably should not be in the article at all, but we definitely cannot structure the lead around it. The first sentence of the lead is meant to summarize the article, and therefore doesn't necessarily required detailed citations - but your version made it vastly worse by introducing numerous statements cited only to, essentially, a self-published opinion piece by a non-notable author. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source, perchance? The Gerstmann source, in addition to the NYTimes piece, is what my research led me to. As I explained above, the Gerstmann source is considered to be reliable anyway. So what's the problem? Why do you think it is "clearly not usable"? I agree that the first sentence should summarize the article, but that doesn't mean describing something that no source agrees with (which is what the former "accountability" sentence did)! - Sridc (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources for the first sentence seem to have been removed at some point in the past; I went through the article's history and found them. Also, as a reminder, you added the contested Gerstmann source just a few days ago - you invoked WP:BRD, but the appropriate thing in this situation is for you to recognize the objections to your proposed addition and talk them out on talk. (In fact, looking at it, you removed the sources - which do, in fact, mention call-out culture - and added the contested Gerstmann source in the same edit. eg. one of the sources you removed says As Jyoti notes below, the internet provides a powerful technology for exposing problematic behaviour of others—“‘call out’ culture” (e.g., Ealasaid Munro 2013)—in ways that have potential to disrupt traditional power relations; you removed it and then complained the sentence you'd stripped the citations off of didn't have a cite for that exact thing!) In any case it's clear there's no consensus for your proposed changes right now. --Aquillion (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

bias language in lead

I personally think the language Sridc has used in this version of the lead is loaded with bias. Just because the author of an opinions piece says something doesn't mean we need to quote it verbatim. Any other editors care to share thoughts on the matter? Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard no on using the Forbes contributor piece. We should not be citing it at all - it's effectively a random blogpost by someone with only a tangentially-connected background and without the widely-recognized expertise that would make their opinions noteworthy - but if we do cite it, it definitely needs to be with in in-line citation making it clear that this is just the author's opinions; and it is plainly WP:UNDUE for the lead. This edit is completely baffling; it removed two high-quality sources which, contrary to the edit summary, discuss call-out culture; and it replaced them with a random self-published opinion piece. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection, I think I have a better idea of what happened. Those two sources were originally for call-out culture (where I restored them, and which they both touch on), but at some point ended up moved to the second paragraph, on cancel culture. So Sridc probably only searched them quickly for "cancel culture" before removing them, and didn't notice they were actually originally cited for call-out culture. You can see what happened if you look at all edits since the dispute began; the sources were originally at the end of the paragraph (presumably intended to cite the entire thing) and were accidentally moved to the Cancel Culture subparagraph when it was split, despite being about Call-Out Culture. Then they were removed for not being about Cancel Culture, and the first sentence was rewritten because it was no longer cited. But either way, it's clear that they're better sources for the first sentence than a Forbes contributor piece. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The bias in lead should now be fixed, per my edit as reported in Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources. - Sridc (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Haidt's book is a stridently WP:BIASED source and cannot be used without in-line citations; it's also WP:UNDUE for the lead given that it's a pop-culture book. The idea that it could be given prominence over two reliable cites to scholarly publications is absurd. It's clear you have some problem with the two refs (you keep referring to them as "feminist", perhaps because you object to their field of study?), but they are from high-quality peer-reviewed publications and are therefore top-notch sources, unlike the stuff you're continuously trying to replace them with. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest not to spread the discussion in multiple sections. I addressed the issue with the Feminist Media Studies sources above; they too are WP:BIASED (feminism is a form of activism, whose bias is political in nature; whereas call-out culture is a neutral sociological phenomenon) inasmuch as while they talk about accountability aspect, they purposefully ignore the shaming/ punitive aspect that Haidt's description addresses. See the undue section below, where I propose to keep them both - for a balanced and neutral lead. - Sridc (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion Nailed-it! If the feminist studies refs are biased, Haidt's book is rabidly so. Sridc, you can't erase women or feminists from the discussion. Shamefully biased editing from you, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I never intended to "erase women or feminists from the discussion" -- claiming so is bordering on violation of WP:AGF, so I'd like us to keep assuming good faith -- in fact I actually proposed to include it, but in a balanced manner (my previous change to remove these references was based on a misunderstanding as they were cited incorrectly in the article). - Sridc (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Haidt

The critical viewpoint, both in the lead and in the description, appears to be not well connected to the rest of the article. Specifically the claim that most US students "despise call-out culture", for which the criticism applies, is very narrow & specific. If we are going to include criticism of Haidt's observations of call-out culture, it should be better than this. Specifically it should address the subset of Haidt's explanations (of call-out culture) as used in the article. The mention in lead in particular gives the impression that it was rushed out the door so as to add support to the undue tag. - Sridc (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the article, and perused the relevant sections of the book. The "private conversation" part in the Wiki article is grossly inaccurate, as it applies only to presidents not the students. Both the book and the Guardian article refers to "conversations with high school and college students" and not "private conversations". I've corrected the Wiki article--both in the lead and in "Description"--to that effect. Now the Haidt criticism reads like this:

Critics note Haidt’s claim that most US students "despise call-out culture", is based on conversations with high school and college students

Which doesn't seem exactly like a good criticism, does it?

- Sridc (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly pushing Haidt's view. Bacondrum (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

How I am pushing Haidt's view if I have only corrected an obvious misrepresentation of the source? To be clear, I do think that viewpoints criticizing Haidt should be allowed, to provide a balanced perspective, however what we have currently is not a good criticism; it almost reads like a tautology (after being corrected for the misrepresentation). - Sridc (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

undue

Aquillion - Taking a step back, I propose that we remain mindful of keeping the article balanced with neutral point of view. I gather that there is both "pro" and "against" views of call-out culture. The feminist sources, for instance, talk about accountability (and presumably social justice as well). Other places talk about the punitive nature of call-out culture. Articles from reliable sources tend to cover the later quite often. But the lead should take into account both. I'll accumulate the sources in that regard here. Beginning with:

A frequently cited problem with call-outs is that it’s all too easy to get carried away and overpunish people, turning alleged perpetrators of upsetting acts into victims themselves. “What can often start out as well-intentioned and necessary criticism far too quickly devolves into brutish displays of virtual tar-and-feathering,” writes the activist and writer Ruby Hamad.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/01/call-out-culture-obama-social-media

- Sridc (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc is blatantly WP:CHERRYPICKING, pushing his own POV and clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'm no longer willing to engage with Sridc any more than I have to. Bacondrum (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion Many thanks for your continued efforts. Always reasonable and articulate. Bacondrum (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum Please don't continue personal attacks and assuming of bad faith (see here) in article Talk pages, which should remain focused on the topic in hand. Your accusation of me cherrypicking holds no water, as you are responding to my comment which in fact proposes the opposite. - Sridc (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion - Here's my proposal for the final balanced lead. Let's move (or copy by summarizing) the first paragraph of Description section dealing with Feminist Media sources to the lead paragraph, as its second sentence (leaving the first as is). So the new lead will look something like this:

Call-out culture (also known as outrage culture) is a form of public shaming that involves people identifying offenses committed by members of their community and then publicly "calling out" the offenders and thereby shaming or punishing them. Its proponents aim to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions by calling attention to behavior that is perceived to be problematic (typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny), usually on social media.

- Sridc (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That's better, but this "(typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny)" is original research. Who says it's typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny"? Bacondrum (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The part you quoted comes from the two aforementioned feminist references. Direct quote from reference 1 (Feminism: A Fourth Wave?): "Many commentators argue that the internet itself has enabled a shift from ‘third-wave’ to ‘fourth-wave’ feminism. What is certain is that the internet has created a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged.". Direct quote from reference 2 (Rape Culture and social media): "Many participants explained how social media offers an important vehicle for seeking accountability and justice—from targeting everyday acts of sexism and rape-supportive statements to sexual violence itself. [...] the internet provides a powerful technology for exposing problematic behaviour of others—“‘call out’ culture” (e.g., Ealasaid Munro 2013)—in ways that have potential to disrupt traditional power relations" - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the second citation references the first. Also, it mentions the word justice which I think is worth of mentioning in our lead. - Sridc (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Original research and synth. The sources do not describe call-out culture as typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny, you do. Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Wikipedia policy on SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The proposed passage associates "perceived to be problematic" with "typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny". Reference 1 says "a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged." Reference 2 cites reference 1; furthermore it mentions "everyday acts of sexism and rape-supportive statements to sexual violence" (which, effectively, is sexism and misogyny) associating it with "problematic behaviour of others" (which is where the "perceived to be problematic" phrase of the article is sourced from). Thus, no conclusion was reached or implied that was not explicitly stated by any of these two sources. If it is not "typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny" - what do you think these sources explicit associate their problematic behaviour phrase with, then? - Sridc (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, however, I think we need multiple sources to delineate what exactly problematic behaviour entails here. The CBC reference mentions racism, for instance. So I guess I'll leave out the parenthesized part from the lead for now, and look into more sources before adding it in an appropriate form. I think we have reached the consensus on the proposal otherwise. - Sridc (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The two feminist sources

The 2nd paragraph references two feminist sources:

• "Rape culture and social media: young critics and a feminist counterpublic"
• "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?"

But I can't find any reference to a cancel culture in those links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridc (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I just read them and you are correct, they should go and related assertions should go too. Just be mindful of your own bias when editing please - your edits have contained POV language and you've appeared to be pushing that book. I looked at your twitter feed and it's clear that you have very strong feelings about the subject. The article must not be used to promote a certain view, a book or an ideology. It must not be a list of complaints about the subject or a list of any kind. The content must be WP:DUE and not just recent news, lists of what people think of the subject, a tit for tat of pro and anti thesis etc. We are not here to report what Obama thinks of University politics, neologisms or Harvey Wienstien nor are we here to report what David Spencer said about Milo Yiannopolous or how South Park made a joke about Call-out culture - we are not here to report anything, end of story. This is an article about a neologism - what it means, where it comes from, how it is used - in an objective manner, this is not a place to grind an axe about feminists or the alt-right or anyone else editors might want to have a rant about. The article needs to be factual, well written, balanced and focused on providing an encyclopedic description of the subject (this is why so much of the old article was cut, it was a mess of opinions and tendentious in the extreme). Anything that even smells like an axe being ground will be challenged and cruft will be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, but it takes two to tango, of course (here's an example which ended up involving User:Jimbo Wales). As such I'd ask the same of other editors. My goal here is expand on Call-out culture. Yes, I'm disappointed that so much of the old article is cut out, but I'll try to understand Wikipedia's standards going forward when making edits. - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What? Did you just share a link attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy? At this point I have to question your bias. You should recuse yourself from editing political pages if that's the way you see it. I'm getting the impression that you are here pushing partisan right-wing politics. Don't edit pages that you have pet peeves about - I'm a trade unionist, I don't go anywhere near trade union or labour movement pages as I have very strong feelings about the subject, negate your bias. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This comes across as a clear personal attack. Can't you engage in good faith? The link I shared is a tweet by Claire Lehmann that points to an edit-war at Quillette which necessitated the involvement of User:Jimbo Wales (and not about "Wikipedia being a leftist conspiracy"). And I used it to demonstrate the fact that your suggesting that I have political bias is rather silly, as others also share a similar bias. You have as much right to think I'm here "pushing partisam [sic] right-wing politics" as you have to think that the earth is flat, or that humans have four legs, but that doesn't change the fact that I have the right to edit pages here as I see fit. You should lay off the anger, and deal with your fellow human beings on an equal footing. Argue in good faith, your criticism of edits should reference Wikipedia policies and not bring in ad hominem accusations. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Sridc (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well it's not a personal attack and I'm not angry, just concerned that you are WP:NOTHERE. You may not edit as you see fit, Wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view and some of your edits and twitter links suggest you may be doing otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your WP:NOBLECAUSE, or some book you like because it confirms your beliefs. I'm assuming good faith, but I have well founded concerns. Don't post fringe conspiracy guff here that rubbishes Wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia discourages discussion of user conduct in article talk pages, I'll just end this by noting that there have been many complaints of your conduct in your talk page User talk:Bacondrum, and in fact I just left one. - Sridc (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, Quillette fails WP:RS, since they've been caught both performing no fact-checking and distorting articles to the point of outright fabrication. It's hard to picture how a tweet from someone who works there would be more reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that at least one of the two feminist sources uses 'call-out culture' (not 'cancel culture'), and Aquillion has moved those references to the first paragraph. Nevertheless, since 'call-out culture' is not an uniquely feminist phenomenon I consider these sources and their descriptions to be highly biased to be used in the introductory paragraph. They can mentioned in the Description section, but the introduction paragraph must adhere WP:NPOV. This is my primary concern right now. In addition to the two sources I already recommend, I'd actually recommend more the description used by Jonathan Haidt. A social psychologist's description of a sociology related concept is more fitting than that of feminist theory. - Sridc (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

And of course, exclusively using the feminist sources in the introductory paragraph of a concept that is not feminist in nature is an extremely one-sided description of it, which majority of sources do not even state as such. Not exactly, neutral. This is why I recommend using the description by Jonathan Haidt (some of which is already in the article further below), if the two other sources I came up is not desirable enough. I'll try to find some descriptions from the book. - Sridc (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I just went ahead and boldly made the edit. Feel free to cross-check the phrasing using Google Books search. - Sridc (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy and is completely unacceptable in the lead or without an in-line citation. The scholarly sources you object to, meanwhile, are from peer-reviewed journals and (as they say) discuss a concept that had its source in feminist literature; therefore, they are some of the best sources available. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You say Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy, but you ignore to state, advocacy for ... which position? Haidt's expertise is in social and moral psychology, which is exactly the domain of Call-out culture. Meanwhile, the feminist literature, as mentioned above, no matter how scholarly they are, suffer from their irrelevance in lead, inasmuch as call-out culture is not a feminist-specific notion, as it covers domains other than feminism. It is not like I'm fixated on Haidt; I am just not aware of any other expert source that describes call-out culture in a neutral fashion (i.e., without siding with any political side). What do you mean by "without an in-line citation"? Sridc (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The name of the book is literally The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure - it takes a strident position on the topic in its title, unequivocally criticizing the topic. Therefore, any cites to it need to express that this is "according to Haidt" or otherwise frame it as Haidt's position and opinion rather than the unequivocal truth. The peer-reviewed journals are neutral; they are published in feminist journals, but that is to be expected given that that's where the concept got its start. They are the sort of sources we can cite for in-line descriptions of neutral facts, yet you described them as opinions According to some feminist authors... while presenting Haidt's stridently critical culture-war take on the topic as a fact in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't stated to which position Haidt's book is an unequivocal advocacy for. So which is it? The title doesn't answer that to me. Yes, Haidt does criticize call-out culture in the book, however his description of call-out culture (as used in the lead) itself is neutral. It is also domain-neutral; whereas the feminist sources' description of call-out culture is as it is pertaining to the domain of feminism. - Sridc (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticizing the topic is, of course, advocacy, which makes him a WP:BIASED source. We can't rely on him for the description. While published in (reputable) feminist journals, the academic sources define the term for general use, using terms that passed peer-review; and their definition is more complete, describing the broad aim or purpose for that sort of criticism. The fact that Haidt omits that aim is obviously dubious given that he is a non-neutral source (ie. he has a motivation to manipulate his description in a way that puts the topic in as negative a light as possible) - therefore, we should rely on the academic ones. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Feminist Media Studies authors' can be as much WP:BIASED in a uncritical approval of call-out culture to the point that would ignore mentioning the shaming/ punishing aspect to it. My opposition is nothing to do with academic papers, rather it is to do with being a feminist source. Of course the lead does not bring the criticism aspect of Haidt at all; the shaming/ punishing aspect of call-out culture is a reported fact (as multiple reliable sources already confirm). I proposed to include accountability as well. The lead should be balanced, without siding to any one side. - Sridc (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The other neutrality issue with the former lead with the feminist sources is that it ignores mentioning the shaming/ punishing aspects of call-out culture. Haidt's description does. It would seem that an improvement to the current lead would be to mention both aspects. - Sridc (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You would need a neutral source for the "shaming / punishing" aspect, or a higher-quality one. Haidt's personal opinion that call-out culture is about "shaming and punishing" fits his aggressive culture-war criticism of the concept, but without a neutral source we obviously cannot put that in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If that's how you like play this out, one could say the same for feminist sources (feminism being advocacy/activism) as well, viz.: You would need a neutral source for the "accountability (sans shaming/ punishing)" aspect, or a higher-quality one. Feminist Media Studies authors' personal opinion that call-out culture is exclusively about accountability, without any shaming/ punishing fits their aggressive culture-war approval of the concept, but without a neutral source we obviously cannot put that in the article voice. - Sridc (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, there are multiple reliable sources talking about the "shaming/ punishing" aspect. For example, "the called-out person is also thrust out of social or professional circles — either on social media or in the real world or both." (from the article, citing nytimes). This is 'punishing'. And 'shaming' is obvious; after all this article has always had the "form of public shaming" description. - Sridc (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

academic vs opinion. Academic wins every time. Op-eds and opinions pieces are really only RS's for the authors own words. Bacondrum (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture

@Bacondrum: - In regards to your revert of my edit adding back the "In popular culture" (from the original Cancel culture page before it got merged) wherein you stated "previous consensus was to remove", I perused the the previous discussion (Talk:Call-out_culture/Archive_1#In_popular_culture) and could not find such a consensus, other than one person (you) agreeing to its removal. Four users in total were involved in that discussion; and here's their response:

• FOARP - Uncertain
• Sourcerery - Keep.
• DIYeditor - Keep.
• Bacondrum (yourself) - Remove.

I'm not too sure how you consider a 1 out of 4 vote to be 'consensus'? Since the consensus in fact appears to keep, I'd rather you reinstate that change. As you observed, I too noticed that citations to be a bit excessive, so we can cut down on it. - Sridc (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed elsewhere too. This is a page about a neologism, a term. It's not about Southpark or the Simpsons - this is text book fan cruft and completely undue. What are we going to do write an interminable list of times the term has been mentioned? Bacondrum (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

a) Where was it "discussed elsewhere"? Please provide a link. b) It is very common to have "In popular culture" section in Wikipedia; Safe space for example has it, and even mentions Southpark episodes. What makes this article special that they ought to be removed? Do explain. - Sridc (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, please familiarize yourself with the relevant guideline at MOS:CULTURALREFS. While lists of cultural products that merely mention an article's subject in passing should indeed be avoided (and could be reasonably described as "cruft"), the fact that a notable TV series like Southpark devoted an entire episode to it can and should be mentioned, especially if covered by independent sources. It seems that this version satisfies the guideline's requirements just fine. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough I'm being over zealous in this case, in and of itself I guess I have no objection as long as it's sourced properly. To give some context to my over zealous attitude towards recentism, bias and cruft here - this was what the article looked like the first time I ever heard the term used and decided to look up it's meaning here [8]... I appreciate your feedback. Bacondrum (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input HaeB. In case you are wondering, here are my thoughts on how this article used to be comprehensive, but not anymore and how it can be improved going forward, with the help of neutral third-parties / mediators. —Srid^YO 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

New reliable source: Meghan Daum

Meghan Daum's book “The Problem With Everything” (ref).

- "2018 was the year that the concept of "cancel culture" went mainstream" (then goes on to provide more context of its beginning, involving Roseanne Barr, Kevin Hart and Louis C.K.)

—Srid^YO 20:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

On the surface this one looks okay, but I'd like to hear what other editors think of this one. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

bias and pushing

"This article in its current state is sorely ignorant of many important aspects of call-out culture, and this (its divisive nature) is chief among them, and is a ripe candidate for inclusion."

Just one of many examples where Srid's bias is hanging out. You are supposed to present verifiable information, not push your view that the subject has in your words a divisive nature Bacondrum (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Cherry picking authors with no particular expertise on the subject (other than Haidt), to push the view that call out culture is divisive in nature (I happen to agree, but what you and I think is irrelevant and should not be evident in the edits we make). Haidt, Daum, Matei and Anderson all have fairly obvious and strident bias - they seem to have been selected for their views rather than their expertise. If we allow this kind of view pushing other editors are going to come and push the opposing view and the article will be an illegible dogs breakfast of tendentious opinion like it was when I first came across it Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. You should address the content, and not the motives of other editors. It is almost never a fruitful course of action, especially on article Talk pages. The "divisive nature" of call-out culture, is not my view as you claim, rather the view of many authors. I stated one source further above, where Adrienne Matei of The Guardian, called it "extremely divisive". WP:NPOV does not mean exclusion of certain points of view (here, the POV of the subject being disruptive), but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due. We will of course aim to report different views (that includes you " the opposing view") on a subject adequately, but that should reflect the relative levels of support for those views, such that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. —Srid^YO 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making a personal attack. It is possible for us to work together. But, when you say the subject has a "divisive nature" (and those were your words) it's hard to ignore the bias implicit in that statement. When you write off peer reviewed academic papers as "feminist sources" in favour of a fervently biased book and a pile of primary sources then it's hard to ignore said bias. It's nothing personal, I just want this article to be encyclopedic in tone and content, not a tendentious set of lists that reads like a dogs breakfast.

Sure, I agree with your intent. And let's work together. For the record--and in the interest of helping clear the air--I never "[wrote] off peer reviewed academic papers as "feminist sources"" (I'm not very knowledgeable of academic feminist theories, nor was English my first language, so my use of 'feminist sources' meant 'sources from academic feminist studies' or something to that effect). You and I in fact both agreed to remove them (your exact words "they should go and related assertions should go too"), but later Aquillion exlained that it was a misunderstanding; so the sources were (rightfully) restored. I even think we should use those sources to provide more context to the article. The opinions of editors (you and me) does not matter; only that of sources that represent the prominent views.

Now, taking about the article itself - as I see there are two groups of viewpoints: the original aim of call-out culture is to hold individuals accountable (for social justice, as far as I can understand), and the sources from the Feminism studies cover this viewpoint (though we could use more sources here), and the other group of viewpoint holds it in a critical light ("divisive" is perhaps an extreme characterization here) while not negating the original aims of maintaining justice. I agree that we should be careful not to 'tip' over too much to one side); but the article should respect WP:NPOV by reflecting the relative levels of support for these both groups of views. —Srid^YO 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that all sounds much more agreeable to me. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. The article should include some info about advocates and detractors - in terms of due weight, culture wars are not the subject of the article and should not make up the bulk of it. The article is about a neologism and the content should reflect that in that it should describe the subject in a neutral tone first and foremost. Read up on primary sources for my objections to the use of opinions pieces. I believe with such a contentious and recent neologism we should use the highest level of caution, we should be looking to quality academic sources and articles and avoiding the myriad of popular, ideologically driven books published on the subject - if the book is firmly for or against, pushing an ideological line then we really shouldn't be using it, or use it sparingly and very cautiously. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Adrienne Matei

This is explained by Adrienne Matei in The Guardian:

A version of call-out culture has been functioning for centuries as a tool for the marginalized and their allies to reveal injustice and the need for reform. The practise of directly addressing inequality underpins countless social justice movements, from civil rights to Standing Rock. The contemporary idea of a “call-out”, however, generally refers to interpersonal confrontations occurring between individuals on social media. In theory, call-outs should be very simple – someone does something wrong, people tell them, and they avoid doing it again in the future. Yet you only need to spend a short amount of time on the internet to know that call-out culture is in fact extremely divisive.

This article in its current state is sorely ignorant of many important aspects of call-out culture, and this (its divisive nature) is chief among them, and is a ripe candidate for inclusion. —Srid^YO 17:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Who? Lifestyle op-ed, not even close to being an RS, biased and not an expert. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes this "not even close to being a RS, biased and not an expert" but that of Moira Weigel (also The Guardian), which is currently in the article, does? —Srid^YO 22:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinions pieces are primary sources - plus that's a lifestyle and fashion opinion. Moira Weigel is a postdoctoral scholar at the Harvard University with expertise in a relevant field and that was an article - a secondary source by a scholar. Read up on reliable sources

WP:RS however does not present the same stringent stance as yours. You are effectively saying "it is op-ed / primary source; we should not use it", but Wikipedia's policy (WP:RSPRIMARY) is more along the lines of "prefer secondary source where available, but if you must, use primary sources with caution". Acc. to WP:RSPSOURCES, "The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION", and if we follow RSOPINION and use this particular source the article would read something to the effect of "Adrienne Matei says....". I don't see a problem here. —Srid^YO 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines urge caution in their use and makes it clear they are to be used "with care" and "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". There's also the due weight aspect - when balanced with due weight primary sources rarely make the cut and should be used sparingly. They can be used, but not in the manner they've been used in this article. If Bell Hooks or Slavoj Žižek weighed in via an opinions piece that might warrant using a primary source (quoting them), but not some random lifestyle and fashion writer. 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)