Talk:Call-out culture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moira Weigel

This:

The authors believe that most US students "despise call-out culture", however Moira Weigel, reviewing their book in The Guardian, notes that they had come to that conclusion based solely on conversations with high school and college students.

is an unnecessarily unwieldy way to phrase what it intends to convey. I'd rephrase it to be:

From their conversations with high school and college students, the authors have come to believe that most US students "despise call-out culture" .

—Srid^YO 15:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Haidt's book should not be used in the lead and once removed this counterpoint wont be needed. A prime example of why biased sources like Haidt's book are not appropriate sources for statements of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

New reliable source: Dianna Anderson

1

Title: Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism

—Srid^YO 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Who? Not a RS, biased and not an expert - it's opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You were already given this source by FOARP and you agreed that it is a reliable source. Furthermore Psantora confirmed in that thread to be reliable as well.(ref). Even if you have suddenly changed your mind, the consensus is still 3-to-1, and it is to include the source. —Srid^YO 22:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not agree that it's a reliable source. What I agree on is irrelevant anyway - who is Dianna Anderson? She written a couple of books and an opinions piece, her opinion is undue - especially with such a contentious subject, the source should be of a higher standard respected and relevant academics, not some random no one has ever heard of simply because their opinion concurs with your own. And please ping editors more sparingly (you don't need to ping an editor every single time you mention them). Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"who is Dianna Anderson?" - Dianna Anderson has a Master's in English Literature from Baylor University and a Master of Studies in Women's Studies from Oxford University(ref). She has a written a book literally with "callout culture" in the title. I agree with the two other editors, User:FOARP & USER:Psantora, that there should be nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. —Srid^YO 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people have masters degrees, and lots of people have published books, that in and of itself does not make one a RS or their opinions due. So how do you intend to use it? I mean "How Toxic Call-out Culture Is Destroying Feminism" it's not like she hasn't made her feeling about the subject clear...I'm super dubious about using this one. Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to find a way to access and glance the book, but meanwhile I located this from an older revision:

In her book "Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism", Dianna E. Anderson stated that "The line between calling out and harrassment is a thin one, especially in a world of social media "pile ons" and blacklisting".

It is not as extreme as describing it as divisive, for instance, but does reflect one group of viewpoints very well. If a better source can be located, reflecting a similar viewpoint, we would use that instead of course. Incidentally, I also located this from that very revision, presenting the other group of viewpoint, but in a more elaborate manner and with better context than it already is in the current article:

Call-out culture has also be characterised positively, with Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling describing it as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism".

—Srid^YO 00:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not willing to let this article return to a being a WP:QUOTEFARM with endless "x says this and Y says that and the Obama's pet dog reckons this and David Brooks says it was Stalin". That being said Dr. Munro is an excellent source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we should not overuse quotations; they should be used sparingly and only when necessary to be included (no other better sources exist for that viewpoint). I haven't yet looked into David Brooks - but you should of course not let your feelings about what whoever said in relation to Stalin to get in the way of Wikipedia editing. —Srid^YO 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

At one point this article literally compared call-out culture to Stalinism, via a quote from David Brooks - I was making a bad joke Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Call-out_culture#Anita_Bright_(defensiveness_&_hostility) for a secondary RS as an alternative to Dianna Anderson's quote.

the use of the expression calling out has been in common parlance as a way to engage in accountability, this expression, in many cases, may take on an accusatory, hostile, and challenging tenor [...]

—Srid^YO 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

New reliable source: David Cunningham

Hearing Vocation Differently: Meaning, Purpose, and Identity in the Multi-Faith Academy , David Cunningham, Oxford University Press. pp. 46 ff. [1]

"[Call-out culture is defined as] the tendency among progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers to publicly name instances or patterns of oppressive behaviour and language use by others".

And it appears to cover a wider range of viewpoints. For example: "call-out culture is not limited to "progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers"; it is prevalent in more conservative circles as well".

The nearby passages discuss call-out in great detail. I'll take a closer look at this book, and come up with a summary.

—Srid^YO 15:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an excellent source, exactly what this article wants. He is widely published, isn't pushing a particular view and has highly relevant expertise as a professor of sociology. Cunningham an excellent reputation for writing on social conflict and social movements. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Call-out_culture#David_Cunningham_(fear_&_self-censorship) —Srid^YO 20:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Haidt's book

To the user who undid my change: this book is *relevant*. There are numerous references to 'call-out culture' in Haidt's book: https://books.google.ca/books?id=9-o6DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coddling+of+the+american+mind&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo7q3LwvbkAhXIc98KHccNCYEQ6AEIKjAA#v=snippet&q=call-out&f=false - Sridc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's cruft and unnecessary here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What? "cruft and unnecessary" in what way? Which wikipedia rule has been broken? There are numerous references to 'call-out culture' in Haidt's book. This is reason enough to add it to the 'See also' section. It is in fact the central thesis of the book. Here's the author directly talking about it in relation to the book: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018674210/jonathan-haidt-call-out-culture-and-the-new-prestige-economy ... if you are going to keep saying "_relevance is unclear_" you better support that increasingly meaningless claim.

Wikipedia is not a random assortment of material, and this seems, honestly, like an attempt to provide promo coverage for one book. I'm removing it, and would suggest you should disclose any CoI you have. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

First, it was "cruft and unnecessary" and now it is "a random assortment of material" and "promo coverage for one book". In way exactly is the inclusion "cruft and unnecessary"? In what way exactly is the addition "a random assortment of material"? I'm neither promoting the book or not receiving any funds from it (just an interested reader). Moreover, why are you evading addressing the core reason for inclusion--that this book is all about call-out culture, as evidenced by the numerous references to it in it (see the two links above)? Please stop carelessly reverting. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not carelessly reverting. This is a book that isn't even being used as a reference in the article text, a single book, which is getting a section all to itself? No. That's not WP:DUE because it's WP:CRUFT - which is a random assortment of material with no significance to a general audience. The vehemence with which the IP has reinserted this material makes me suspect that they want to use this page for WP:PROMO and have an undisclosed WP:COI. As a result, if this one book is continuously reinserted with no justification for WP:DUE I will be reporting it to WP:COI/N for investigation. I hope this is clear. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There's way too many books arguing back-and-forth about this sort of topic to include all of them, and no particular reason to shine a spotlight on this one in particular. I agree that it's WP:UNDUE. If we included every single such hatchet-grinding culture-war piece on a topic like this, the See Also section would be a mile long. --Aquillion (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The book is published by Penguin Books, it has garnered a substantial number of reviews, the authors Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff are well known, and the book contains specific description and discussion of call-out culture on pages 71–73. So the book can and should be used to support specific text within this article, which is short and pretty weak. Haidt and Lukianoff's opinions would also be notable given their contribution to the debate on call-out culture, but for this reason included text should be attributed.

I strongly disagree with everyone commenting above, either arguing that the reference should be added without specific text (which would be terribly lazy), or that the book is undue and "cruft." A book by reputable academic authors and a strong publisher on this general topic and with a specific description of the article topic is the opposite of cruft and using the term here renders it meaningless. Also, note that without specific evidence of a WP:COI, raising the allegation of a COI constitutes a personal attack: there are probably millions of people interested in this topic in the US alone, and IP / new user interest hardly suffices to demonstrate a COI. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My concerns regarding CoI are about a specific suspicious pattern of behaviour which I suspect might indicate a CoI. You'll note that I'm not generally in the habit of raising CoI concerns randomly. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I refer to the inclusion of Obama's opinion on the matter as cruft. I assume that is what others mean by cruft. The book is undue, especially seeing the only thing it is being used to referenceis the books own content. Bacondrum (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet: So feel free to use it as a reference. --MarioGom (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I will note I have not argued against the use of the book as a reference so long as the usage is WP:DUE. Only that it should not be given an independent section, with no mention of what secondary sources have said regarding it, when it is not currently being used as a reference within the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no point in a indiscriminate books section here. Specially when there seems to be only 3 relevant pages. Referencing might still be valid. --MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me actually--to use it as a reference, while quoting the book even. And I appreciate the input from multiple parties. - Sridc (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay I have now added a reference to the book pulling in the relevant quote. Let me know your feedback. - Sridc (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Fix the ref so it doesn't point to the wikipedia article but rather the book the article is about please. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I do that exactly? (EDIT: okay, I edited it out) - Sridc (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that's better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The source is good, but the content that's been added is undue, it's cruft. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The content was added as a result of the dispute resolution conversation above. Instead of simply reverting it and vanishing without engaging others, I suggest discussing it with the users here first. Otherwise, we will have to open a case on whatever wikipedia page is for dispute resolution, which seems unnecessary to me - as such a case was already opened, leading to the very discussion you are reading above. Hit Ctrl+F and search for "undue" and "cruft"; this was already discussed here. - Sridc (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc NO, that's not how wikipedia works - you are edit warring. I've restored the status quo. You were bold and your edits have been challenged, you now need to work towards consensus. I for one am opposed to your additions they are completely WP:UNDUE, IMO. You have been challenged and there is no consensus to reinstate your edits. Do not reinstate your edits without consensus as per WP:3RR and WP:STATUSQUO. No hard feeling, myself and others simply disagree. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, I just read the above discussion and the consensus is against including your recent edits. This is an encyclopedic entry regarding a neologism, not a culture war debate listing every single viewpoint on the matter, from ex-presidents utterly irrelevant opinions on on the term to randomly selected books that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there has been consensus. See the comment by Darouet where he disagrees with the "undue" characterisation. My edits were approved, but you revert is not. Please engage with others (Darouet, et. al) before reverting again. Thank you. - Sridc (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact, 3 people above support the change. You are the only one that disapproves. The numbers are in favour of including the change. If you disagree, you should argue in the talk page instead of blindly reverting it. - Sridc (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I suspect you have a political conflict of interest (especially given that you have removed a big chuck of book summary in The Coddling of the American Mind) and therefore have a vested interest in censoring a balanced point of view on this topic. It might be better to involve other parties, after all. - Sridc (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, would you care to explain why would you remove Jonathan Haidt but not Michael Bérubé and Lisa Nakamura? All 3 have written about the topic -- Haidt much more than others -- and yet you want to remove him? - Sridc (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While I personally disagree with Haidt's position and think he's the wrongest man in wrongville, he's an academic with a decent basis in the subject matter - his opinion is probably not WP:UNDUE mention. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, I don't know if you know much of the history of this page, but I strongly suggest you take disputes over reversions to the Administrative Noticeboard - Incidents page. I have found that with this article it's important to follow the process. DeRossitt (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest that you please don't take disputes over content reversion to WP:AN/I unless it's clear that there's a behavioral roadblock to progress. AN/I does not settle content disputes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, in fact that is what I meant to suggest and should have made that distinction. I think there is often a behavioral roadblock to progress on this article. DeRossitt (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc You don't have consensus to reinstate Obama's opinion, you got consensus that the book can be used as a reference. I've argued for the removal of Michael Bérubé and Lisa Nakamura's opinions in the past. I have no conflict of interest - don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. Bacondrum (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I note that this source has now been added to the lead, which is both grossly WP:UNDUE and completely unacceptable without in-line citations given Haidt's fairly strident bias on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree, the book is not appropriate for the lead as it's got a clear and firm bias. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with using David Cunningham as source instead in the lede. —Srid^YO 21:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ealasaid Munro

Already in the article, but does not exactly present an accurate picture of what's actually said in the source.

- Nakamura, Lisa: The Unwanted Labour of Social Media: Women of Colour Call Out Culture As Venture Community Management

- Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling, defines "Callout culture" as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism" (quoted here).

—Srid^YO 16:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Both of these are great. Relevant, qualified and balanced. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

More context from this source, and this one as well: call-out culture as a part of Fourth-wave feminism? —Srid^YO 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lisa's quote need further elaboration,

"'It's a cultural boycott,' said Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender and sexuality. 'It's an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.'"

—Srid^YO 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

#MeToo

The connection with MeToo is worth mentioning. Here's an academic source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350506818765318?journalCode=ejwa

Since 2014, we have been studying the ways feminists have increasingly turned to digital technologies and social media platforms to dialogue, network and organize against contemporary sexism, misogyny and rape culture (see Mendes et al., forthcoming). As a research team the sheer volume of attention paid towards this hashtag took us by surprise, but the fact survivors took to social media to share their experiences and engage in a ‘call-out culture’ resonated strongly with our research findings over the past three years. Although #MeToo is perhaps one of the most high-profile examples of digital feminist activism we have yet encountered, it follows a growing trend of the public’s willingness to engage with resistance and challenges to sexism, patriarchy and other forms of oppression via feminist uptake of digital communication.

—Srid^YO 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Good source, I'm sure it'll be useful in expanding the article, but MeToo - That's a spurious connection, do the authors make more of a conection than simply mentioning them in the same paragraph? MeToo is a separate thing. Lets see what other editors say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I found another paper discussing this connection. Bartlett A., Clarke K., Cover R. (2019) #MeToo: Scandals and the Concept of Flirting. In: Flirting in the Era of #MeToo. Palgrave Pivot, Cham:

‘Call-out’ culture, as it is beginning to be understood, relies on using popular digital media and social networking to make statements and assertions of sexual assault and harassment that would otherwise potentially be ignored by traditional institutions.

—Srid^YO 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be seeking out critical quotes and work that confirms your beliefs, really you should be reading quality sources and letting them inform the content, not deciding on content and then seeking out sources that back up your assertions. Maybe that's not the case, I just thought I'd put it to you that it's better to let the sources inform the content. If I was to do the same I'm certain I could find a bunch of works that claim Call-out culture doesn't exist, or that it is valuable tool for social justice - I'd rather read the work of someone like Cunningham and let that inform the content. If you look long and hard enough I'm sure you could find sources that blame Jewish conspiracies for call-out culture...I hope you get what I'm saying. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You are making a WP:REHASH of WP:AOBF; please stop, and WP:AGF while focusing on content. I have already stated to you that I have been impartially searching the sources for call-out culture both in internet and scholarly search engines. Article talk pages are not fitting of conduct allegations (do it in User talk pages if you need to). —Srid^YO 21:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comedians & cancel culture

Question for fellow Wikipedia editors. Are comedy shows that used call-out culture as their primary theme to be included in the "In popular culture" section (I think not?) or in other sections? A very good example is Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones whose primary subject is cancel culture (this article). —Srid^YO 20:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but not if it becomes a list of every person who ever mentioned the subject, it should be selective and limited - they need to be demonstrably noteworthy Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It should read like an encyclopedia–giving an overview and summarizing the noteworthy cases. —Srid^YO 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I think this warrants a summary explanation in the article body. Not Sticks & Stones specifically, but the pattern of several comedians using cancel-culture in their shows. Source: Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle and more comedians weigh in, bluntly, on 'cancel culture' from Fox News. Another source (apparently presenting a contrarian viewpoint) is The “Cancel Culture” Con from New Republic. —Srid^YO 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What would this summary explanation look like? Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd need to read the sources in full before proposing it, but at this point I'd imagine it should briefly mention (inasmuch as an encyclopedia is expected to) how call-out culture/ cancel culture influenced prominent standup comedians to position it as a primary theme in their shows, citing certain prominent examples. —Srid^YO 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Low importance sources

Suzanna Danuta Walters

Suzanna Danuta Walters is the director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program and professor of sociology at Northeastern University, Boston. Her review article titled "Academe’s Poisonous Call-Out Culture". —Srid^YO 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, it's an opinion piece. Again, I'd like to see either how it'll be used and what other editors think.

I have a problem with these articles and books that have clear bias in their titles. We should be looking for sources that treat the subject in a neutral manner. You've found some good ones like Professor David Cunningham and Dr Ealasaid Munro, most the others are opinionated and unqualified/not relevant Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The title means nothing. We should look at the content, and check if it rings WP:BIASED. I haven't read this one yet, but Suzzana is an academic, so I wouldn't jump immediately to calling it biased, especially without reading it. —Srid^YO 00:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

True, it wouldn't hurt to have a proper look, but the title does mean something and in this case and many others it suggests a strong POV, we are looking for neutral sources on the whole. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I find this source rather difficult to read, so if somebody else is interested in it, go ahead. I'll mark this as low-importance. —Srid^YO 17:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So you recommended a source without reading it? Did you just like that negative title? Is this the case with the other articles and books that you suggest as refs that have overtly negative and bias titles? Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope; I read every other source, at least around the passages that talked about call-out or cancel culture (in order to establish relevance). The plan was to read them again thoroughly, once after all the sources were collected and categorized. This one was an exception, however because I found it from a scholarly search engine, and the author is an academic expert, I decided to file it here for a later review. In regards to "overtly negative bias titles" - that reeks of WP:REHASH of WP:AOBF, and a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT of my point of the relative prominent of opposing views (see 'Suggestion' below) —Srid^YO 00:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Origin

How, and exactly when, did contemporary 'call-out culture' arise? Here's what I have been able to find, so far (ref):

According to Riley H. on their article Call-Out Culture Isn’t Toxic. You Are. on Medium, the “Call Out Culture” started from Tumblr wayback in 2011-2012 by the Black Femmes. Their main reason for “calling out” is to stop someone from harassing them.

And 'cancel culture' arose around 2015 in Black Twitter (ref).

The idea of being cancelled has been around since at least 2015 (although likely longer), where it is believed to have originated on Black Twitter, a loose collective of users on the social media platform, but has since come to widespread usage, especially in 2018.

—Srid^YO 03:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely to be able to find a definitive answer there. An opinion in a publication no one has ever heard of by someone no one has ever heard isn't even close to a RS.

Effects of call-out culture

This is a list of various academics and experts talking about how the general population (typically the student body) responds to call-out culture.

Conor (stress)

Not necessarily as a section, but as an aspect to add to the article. Here's an Atlantic piece (a reliable source) that specifically talks about stress among students as the result of call-out culture. 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure Haidt's observations regarding safetyism/depression can be consolidated along with this one. —Srid^YO 00:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's an opinions piece by someone with no particular expertise on the subject. His article can be used as sources - but his opinion is...opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Jacqueline (fear)

From the academic Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2019.1673600

[...] today’s campus call-out culture makes it yet harder for students to hold—or even just consider—unorthodox ideas for fear of being shamed on social media

—Srid^YO 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This, too, can be consolidated together with Haidt's belief that US students "despise call-out culture". It makes sense to group these "cluster" of viewpoints in, say, a single paragraph, rather than spreading them around. —Srid^YO 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of psychological effects? If there's a study and a psychologist claims there are effects then that's noteworthy - If not it's all just opinion and we are making a claim based on original research. I'd err on leaving it out unless there's evidence rather than opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring using psychological research done on a populace in order to report what reliable sources say in regards to the feelings experienced by that populace. —Srid^YO 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There are many factors that affect the inclusion of opinion, one is due weight and another is that claims are verifiable and there are plenty more. You can't include claims about psychological effects without verifiable evidence. All you've presented is unqualified opinion - I would have thought this was obvious. Bacondrum (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, it's more than a little far fetched to claim that it causes noteworthy psychological effects. I'd be surprised if a single study backed up this opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is because of the hang up on 'psychological effects'. If this reliable secondary source describes that call-out culture leads to students experiencing "fear of being shamed on social media" we would state it as such (not necessarily phrasing it as 'psychological effects' in the article). —Srid^YO 03:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The page on Cyberbullying for example states victims may experience "a variety of negative emotional responses, including being scared, frustrated, angry, and depressed." but reference does not directly cite any psychological research. Which is how it should be, as there is no Wikipedia policy requiring using psychological research done on a populace in order to report what reliable sources say in regards to the feelings experienced by that populace. —Srid^YO 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Who cares what's on the cyberbullying page (Wikipedia pages often contain mistakes, uncited claims etc), this is a page on Call-out culture.

We should care enough to understand WP:EDITING policy, instead of bringing in personal preferences. I used Cyberbullying as an example to illustrate my point that there is no Wikipedia policy requiring using psychological research done on a populace in order to report what reliable sources say in regards to the feelings experienced by that populace. Your insistence that we should cite them is not important here. —Srid^YO 14:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There are many factors that affect the inclusion of opinion, one is due weight and another is that claims are verifiable and there are plenty more. You can't include claims about psychological effects without verifiable evidence. All you've presented is unqualified opinion - I would have thought this was obvious. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is WP:REHASH, you didn't cite any specific editorial policy violation and I think you are wrong, and it looks to me like we need a mediator or neutral 3rd party here (who will take all these sources under the 'Effects of call-out culture' section to establish context). —Srid^YO 21:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do what you want mate, but know that excessive spurious reports and endless mediation makes it hard to be civil and work together. I'd love to hear from other editors too, I'm sure they'll pipe in soon enough. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Laura M. Harrison (fear)

Laura Harrison, associate professor; teaches and writes on the topics of advocacy, change, and leadership in higher education. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2019.1631190

some of the students [half the students in this class come from countries outside the United States] shared that they had quit asking questions altogether out of fear of being called ignorant and/or oppressive.

—Srid^YO 03:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This source seems to be marginal at best. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it even mention call-out culture?

Frances E. Lee (fear)

Frances E. Lee is Professor in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs at Princeton University (ref).

after witnessing countless people be ruthlessly torn apart in community for their mistakes and missteps, I started to fear my own comrades. [...] On social media, I’ve stopped commenting with thoughtful push back on popular social justice positions for fear of being called out.

—Srid^YO 03:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of different opinions. No secondary sources though, other than a review of that book of yours. We could mention that some academics have felt that Call-out culture may have caused some degree of fear in some of their students. Bacondrum (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"some academics have felt that Call-out culture may have caused some degree of fear in some of their students" - Yes, that's a good idea, and is exactly (if not in the exact way you phrased it) the kind of summary I'm looking to glean from these various sources. —Srid^YO —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece; that makes their credential somewhat secondary. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I found more references for Frances Lee:

Academic Frances E. Lee says she sees "parallel between the authoritarian dogmas of orthodox religion and social justice activism" in call-out culture's "quest for purity", which makes even activists "self-police" their statements for fear of being called out for statements that are deemed "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate".(ref) Lee says that this self-policing is a "reproduction of colonialist logics", in which people are "preaching" and "tell[ing] each other what to do" by using "shaming, calling out, isolating, or eviscerating someone's social standing", which she calls "controlling and destructive behaviour".

—Srid^YO 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece, one I happen to agree with on the whole, but an opinion piece none the less. Bacondrum (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ehan M. Huffman (self-censorship)

I came across this research, titled "Call-out Culture: How Online Shaming Affects Social Media Participation in Young Adults", that, effectively, concludes that call-out culture leads to some form of self-censorship.

Drawing on Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) model for understanding organizational silence, and NoelleNeumann’s Spiral of Silence Theory (1974), this study collected and coded open-ended survey responses from 321 young adults ages 18 to 24 living in the United States. Results confirmed that witnessing or experiencing acts of online shaming leads to a reduction in social media posting for some users.

—Srid^YO 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, seems really obscure and crufty. I'd like to hear what other editors think. It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible, not saying you are, but it comes off like that. Bacondrum (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible" - That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. —Srid^YO 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There's just as many advocating as detracting, you are being selective. You should try actually reading WP:YESPOV, especially "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements" Bacondrum (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So, go find them. If as you say there are "just as many advocating as detracting" (implying that both group of viewpoints are represented in equal proportions), list those sources that you think I've selected out. —Srid^YO 01:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

David Cunningham (fear & self-censorship)

David Cunningham's source was mentioned further above (see Talk:Call-out_culture#New_reliable_source:_David_Cunningham). It refers to "the exhaustion and anxiety" call-out culture "can foster" (fear), and goes on to say that the prevalence of call-out culture can "make those in the marginalized groups feel even more hesitant to speak out for what they feel is right" (self-censorship). The passage ends with "In such circumstances, it can be easy to retreat into oneself–into a self-protective interiority". —Srid^YO 16:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Anita Bright (defensiveness & hostility)

(See also: Talk:Call-out_culture#Anita_Bright_(calling-in))

Bright, Anita and James Gambrell. "Calling In, Not Calling Out: A Critical Race Framework for Nurturing Cross-Cultural Alliances in Teacher Candidates." Handbook of Research on Promoting Cross-Cultural Competence and Social Justice in Teacher Education. IGI Global, 2017. 217-235. Web. 9 Nov. 2019. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0897-7.ch011.

the use of the expression calling out has been in common parlance as a way to engage in accountability, this expression, in many cases, may take on an accusatory, hostile, and challenging tenor. Often expressed in a public setting (on the internet, for example), and with heated emotion-- anger, frustration, outrage-- the act of calling out is frequently expressed with sharpness and unambiguous language, with a literal or implied “how dare you?” layered into the communication. As might be expected, responses to this kind of confrontation are not always welcomed with humility and warmth, but rather, are met with defensiveness and a matching hostility, which may serve to further entrench disparate beliefs and/ or deepen wounds carried by both parties. So while calling out may serve some short-term purpose of silencing or redirecting the offending person, the longer-term effects may be paradoxical in that the “accused” may have initial stereotypes or negative ideas reinforced. “Because call-outs tend to be public, they can enable a particularly armchair and academic brand of activism: one in which the act of calling out is seen as an end in itself” (Ahmad, 2015, para 1). In many cases, calling out leaves little space for human connection, growth, or cross-cultural connections that are healthy and positive.

—Srid^YO 16:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Srid, Instead of cherrypicking negative quotes and bombarding us with wheat (sources) and asking us to sort the chaff (bad ones), why don't you read some of the rock solid sources like Prof. Cunningham and Dr. Munro, understand what neutral and qualified source material says about the subject, let that inform your contribution and construct the content you wish to add, then put that up for discussion? You can do this in your sandbox. I've found it helpful in the past to construct paragraphs etc, make proposed editions there, and share them with others for feedback. It's hard to judge sources without knowing how they'll be used. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I will be adding any more sources–unless of course if I come across something notable–as by now we have accumulated sufficient amount of them (also, it was never my intention to relegate judgement of what constitutes a good source merely to other editors–as in your "asking us to sort the chaff" phrasing–as Wikipedia editing is a collaborative process where consensus based on our editing policies is favoured over individual judgement). I've finalized the 'collection process' by organizing them categorically. At this point, what's left for me is to actually read these sources (note, we did not establish any consensus that only those of Prof. Cunningham and Dr. Munro will be considered; and I think you're implying that only these are "neutral and qualified" is a big mistake). I'll take up your suggestion and write some content in the sandbox. "It's hard to judge sources without knowing how they'll be used." - okay, point noted.

Do note that your "cherrypicking negative quotes" is yet another WP:REHASH of WP:AOBF, and I've asked you many times to WP:AGF. One such earlier instance of you saying it was "It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible", to which I responded: "That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.". There is a good amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT coming from you.

—Srid^YO 21:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion. Suit yourself. I'm assuming good faith. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of biased sources going both ways, it's demonstrably false to claim "One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other". You do appear to be cherrypicking negative views. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral perspective, it's not okay to run an overly critical Libertarian view on the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I never said anything like "only those of Prof. Cunningham and Dr. Munro will be considered", I just think they are quality sources and we both agree on those, again, just a suggestion. I'm keen to keep this civil and work together. I'm not attacking you, I'm critical of some of your proposals and the number of negative (bias) sources you are providing. Bacondrum (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it is only your contention that the sources I provide are "biased". I do not share that belief. If you think "there's plenty of sources going both ways" (implying that both group of viewpoints are represented in equal proportions), list those sources that you think I've selected out. Either show the evidence, or stop assuming bad faith. —Srid^YO 01:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A Chill Pill

Bacondrum, Sridc - Please have a sense of proportion about this article. Particularly the continuous edit-warring is not getting you anywhere. Do yourselves a favour and go and edit something else for a bit - when you come back this article will still be here, because it is clearly not going to be deleted.

Bacondrum - Your involvement with this article predates Sridc's, and whilst I don't think their present strategy is making progress, your strategy does not seem so different to that which was discussed at ANI and which you said you would change. EDIT: I also note that this strategy was also part of what was discussed in this ANI discussion.

Obviously I'm not an admin or anything so there's no reason why you should necessarily listen to me, but I think you both might benefit from a break away from this page and a change in strategy. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I'll leave it alone for a while. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Between Sridc's rapidfire attempts to insert sources with a very clear POV but which includes some that might be appropriate, and Bacondrum's immediate refusal of all I'm not seeing very good practice here from either party. I'd suggest it'd be good to listen to FOARP here and both of you take a break. Sridc: it's clear you want this article to be more critical of the act of public criticism for perceived personal flaws; however some of the sources you've selected are marginal and in others you seem to be cherry-picking quotes that fit your narrative. This isn't best practice. Bacondrum: Academic sources are generally considered high-quality, unlike opinion pieces, even when we dislike or strongly disagree with their conclusions. I'd suggest you both cool off and then return with a goal of collaborative improvement rather than pushing POVs. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Citations not mentioning subject

"In the season's third episode, "The Problem with a Poo", there are references to the documentary The Problem with Apu (relevance?), the cancellation of Roseanne after controversial tweets by the show's eponymous actress, and the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh(relevence?)." The only thing relevant to this article is Rosanne Barr being "cancelled", but niether of the citations mentions cancellation, cancel culture or call-out culture. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/south-park-goes-roseanne-barr-simpsons-apu-character-1151462n https://news.avclub.com/south-park-will-somehow-tackle-both-brett-kavanaugh-and-1829634344 Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a fair point (btw, the Hollywood Reporter link is broken, this is the correct one). But there are better sources that directly make that connection, e.g. Mashable ("...the contentious episode will surely go down in history. ... it took on the entire concept of 'cancel culture.' With direct references to the controversies around Roseanne Barr, Brett Kavanaugh, and the ongoing debate over whether The Simpsons' stereotypically Indian Apu character has a place in our current culture, it dove in face first"). I have re-added the mention with that citation instead, also improving the wording a bit. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice work! Bacondrum (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Stridently biased source

I believe this book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt is given undue weight. I believe it is worth mentioning, but not citing throughout (especially not in the lede) nor dedicating a full paragraph to promoting the views of the authors - there's already an article on the book. The book has a clear and strident bias, it is an ideologically driven work written from libertarian stance. Authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are well known libertarian culture wars pundits, shouldn't we be looking to more neutral sources? Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there is any inherent problem with sourcing some of the lead from this work so long as its in proportion to the content represented in the article. As for citing, if the article were properly sourced throughout the body the lead wouldn't need any per WP:LEADCITE but until then a cite in the lead is OK though not ideal. On a more substantive note, a properly neutral article should present the predominant perspectives from reliable sources in a fair and unbiased manner, in due proportion whether positive or negative. As is, the fraction of the article sourced from that single book appears more than is WP:DUE. However the ideal solution would be to expand the article with more sources and perspectives in which case the current short paragraph would be fine in a fully-fleshed article, rather than trimming the current content. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the well considered feedback, much appreciated. 21:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)

Improvements to call-out culture

The dominant group of viewpoints on call-out culture often segues into proposed improvements or alternatives. This section documents those sources.

Anita Bright (calling-in)

I found this excellent source that not only ties the two groups of viewpoints together (as to how one morphs into another), but also brings up a third notion ... of "calling in" that retains the accountability part without the negative aspects.

Bright, Anita and James Gambrell. "Calling In, Not Calling Out: A Critical Race Framework for Nurturing Cross-Cultural Alliances in Teacher Candidates." Handbook of Research on Promoting Cross-Cultural Competence and Social Justice in Teacher Education. IGI Global, 2017. 217-235. Web. 9 Nov. 2019. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0897-7.ch011.

The chapter explains call-out culture in neutral fashion (see Talk:Call-out_culture#Anita_Bright_(defensiveness_&_hostility) for quotations). You can find the PDF online. Here, I will quote only the part talking about calling-in:

In contrast, the act of calling in takes some of the same key ideas of accountability, but recasts them into more humane, humble, and bridge-building constructs, and sets them in a more private domain. Ahmad (2015) explains that calling in “means speaking privately with an individual who has done some wrong, in order to address the behaviour without making a spectacle of the address itself”

—Srid^YO 04:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a very firm no, from me. Not here to WP:PROMOTE books, alternatives or anything. If you wanna create an article about Call-in Culture you are welcome to try, but I doubt it will meet criteria for an article. One person suggesting one alternative in not noteworthy. If the idea takes off and becomes widely discussed that would be different. Bacondrum (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not WP:BOOKSPAM, because it contributes to the article; it looks like you overlooked the part where I wrote "The chapter explains call-out culture in great detail" - and narrowly focused your attention on my note on call-in culture. This is one of the best sources, and I strongly think it should be included. You can't WP:CHERRYPICK some books (see your comment on David Cunningham above), while rejecting others. Anita Bright has a doctorate and an experienced professor whose primary research interests "focus on racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, and draw from critical theory and include explorations into the ways curricular materials may function as reproducers of culture, and the ways marginalization and oppression may influence students, their families, and the climate of educational settings. Her research also includes a focus on the ways law enforcement intersects with public school education, and the ways preservice teachers conceptualize ideas of social justice, and explores the ways they use discourse to explain, defend, and justify their thinking.". She is obviously a relevant expert. Take a look at the source yourself. —Srid^YO 14:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, it is a good reliable secondary source to back the dominant group of viewpoints that are otherwise covered mostly by primary sources. —Srid^YO 15:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an education guide to me, I'm not cherry picking, I'm asking for high quality sources for a contentious subject. I can see that the author is credible, but I stand by calling-in being fringe and not noteworthy. Perhaps the book is useful for a take on negative aspects of call-out culture. David Cunningham is an outstanding source, Anita Bright is an unknown quantity for me. I'd like to see how it's to be used and hear what others think. I'm not writing it off, just saying that Call-in is not worthy of inclusion, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what it looks like to you. What makes this WP:BOOKSPAM, or unsuited in anyway, (cite Wikipedia policies), but not that of David Cunningham when both are secondary reliable sources? You need to cite Wikipedia policies, otherwise this sounds like "I don't like this source, or what it talks about, so we should not use it" which reeks of editorial bias and beats WP:NPOV. —Srid^YO 21:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything, I'm here voluntarily. I don't object to the source outright - I object to the inclusion of "proposed improvements or alternatives." unless they have been widely discussed and are popular. This Call-in stuff is WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:cruft. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What did you imagine an "inclusion of proposed improvements or alternatives." would have looked like? Because I certainly did not make any explicit proposal of content. At this point, it is merely collection of sources with their relevant quotations. As to what exact words will go into the article, that has not been established yet. For all we know, especially as there have so far only been two reliable sources in this respect, this whole section may only be described as a sentence or two near the end of the article. —Srid^YO 21:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's hard to judge sources without knowing how they'll be used. But as I said, I'd oppose inclusion of proposed improvements or alternatives as undue and cruft. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Anna Richards

Anna Richards is a Registered Clinical Counsellor, specializing on conflict mediation, and a certified mediator in downtown Vancouver. She is also on faculty at the Justice Institute of British Columbia and a vice president at The Neutral Zone Coaching and Consulting. She commonly advises on: relationships, workplace conflict, depression/anxiety, suicidality, LGBTQ related exploration, trauma and communication skills training.(ref).

By ganging up on an individual, “you’re taking this moral high ground, with a lot of righteous indignation, and inviting others to participate in a public shaming exercise”, which is rarely productive [...]When we rationalize our own mistakes, “we tend to give ourselves really high context”. “We think, well I was going through something, and there were certain norms at the time, I was following everybody else,” but when someone offends us we’re less willing to see what contributed to their behavior, aside from inherent badness. [She] believes that learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism, and considering the context and possible consequences of the situation we’re contributing to helps call-out culture work productively.

(ref) —Srid^YO 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lifestyle opinion. I also don't support this proposed improvements or alternatives section for reasons I've already mentioned. Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. I don't anyway imagine coming to this section before substantially improving the article using the rest of the sources mentioned in Talk. We'll revisit this later. —Srid^YO 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You speak of your edits and sources as though it's a done deal, I'm not saying they definitley wont be used, but it most certainly is not a given that any will be included. This kind of talk is not conducive to collaboration. Bacondrum (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

As a note, that user has been blocked for WP:SOCKing. It might be worth going back over their additions and removing potentially contentious ones per WP:BLOCKEVADE. (The fact that they were socking may explain, among other things, why they were so incredibly aggressive with their reverts.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No one actually gets "cancelled" for real anyways so it turns out that it has literally no effect

So this week there's been a deluge of news reports and articles claiming the Cancelling and calling out has absolutely no effect (no surprises there). Proof that many claims made here are WP:TOOSOON. This article for example (one of many, it was even being discussed on ABC's RN yesterday) claim the carry on is empty and no one has actually been cancelled. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/10/disgraced-comedian-louis-ck-is-going-on-a-world-tour-so-much-for-cancel-culture.html. ...apparently Michael Jackson was cancelled, but I was in a bar full of people dancing to his music on Friday, so that too is BS. Claims about it's effect are going to have to wait until we can verify that it has any effect at all. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Looking back over the history, it appears that the previous discussion of whether to have a popular culture section was heavily tainted by sockpuppetry; both Sridc and Sourcerery were abusing sockpuppets and are now blocked (I'm unclear if they were socks of each other or not, but either way the discussion is clearly tainted.) One of the other people they cited as 'uncertain' was opposed, and of course I was opposed myself, so it never had a valid consensus for inclusion. In any case, I don't feel the current pop-culture section adds anything - it focuses WP:UNDUE weight on sources that only mention the topic in passing. I've removed it for now per WP:BLOCKEVADE because the editors adding and restoring it recently were entirely banned sockpuppets, but more generally, if anyone wants to argue such a section should be added they should probably start from square one and establish consensus for it given the problems previous discussions had. --Aquillion (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jezebel blog

For the interested: Well It Sure Was a Big Year for the 'Call-out Culture' Wikipedia Page Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

They do have an interesting point in that we ought to trace the origins of the term more closely (who coined it, how it was popularized, etc.) I did a little bit of digging a while back and I recall finding some sources saying that it was coined by someone who now regrets it, but I seem to recall finding little secondary coverage, and I also found sources using it before then, so I gave up. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting, I like being described as an "Australian labor activist" and that they think my edits are worth discussing. I agree strongly with this "a more honest, if not completely literal, article might describe the production of call-out culture through the online outrage of columnists like Jonathan Haidt and David Brooks. But Wikipedia isn’t really built for anything as reasonable as all that" But as you pointed out Aquillion, one needs to find secondary coverage. I personally think call-out culture is make believe. Bacondrum (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I must say, it musta been a real slow news week to make an article out of a wikipedia debate. Bacondrum (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This was actually a fairly interesting "debate" on a special topic. Compare Trekkies take on Wikis in a grammatical tizzy over Star Trek Into Darkness.

That said, I sometimes wonder if some "Look this Celeb's WP-article got screwed with!!" I see in media was screwed with by the author to fill a few inches. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I found the article interesting. Still, I personally don't reckon Wikipedia debates are newsworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I respect your view. I also edited Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 a lot. Those aren't necessarily about WP "debates" though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Jason Sudeikis is next for some "cancelling." He knows what he did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

hahaha! It bit him though! Baby Yoda should be cancelled, violent little thing. Bacondrum (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to force-choke Cara Dune was not cool. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the press coverage link, very interesting. I had no idea Wikipedia made the news so often. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

adjustment to Nakamura reference

Could we add this to the paragraph about Nakamura?

contemplates cancel culture as an opportunity to educate[1]. Birnbryer20 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

sounds like an improvement Bacondrum (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

addition to end of article?

Hi

can we add this to the end of the article?

Ethan M. Huffman's thesis concludes that teens that experienced public shaming reduce their social media participation.[3]

Birnbryer20 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Bacondrum (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Can "problematic" be changed to "offensive?"

In the lead, can "problematic" be changed to "offensive"?Birnbryer20 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly should be, problematic sounds very weaselly to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I edited the page, but am not sure I properly signed my edits. Apologies. Birnbryer20 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Add word "commercial" and effects on personal lives

Here is an addition to the article I would like to make

Condemnations of "cancel culture" are often understood to be complaints to delegitimize criticism, especially when consequences result. The (add word) commercial consequences of criticism have also been exaggerated. (add) People who experience "canceling" report effects[2] on their personal lives.

Birnbryer20 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, sounds like a reasonable change to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Birnbryer20: feel free to edit the article, if it is contested (reverted or edited in a way you find is concerning), then seeking consensus here would be the right thing to do (WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are good practice). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Birnbryer20 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

additional links to add

Proposing to add internal links to shaming and cancel culture in the lead.

Change unpopular to controversial

Rewrite last two sentences to be condensed to

Call-out culture and canceling can also affect teens who use social media by reducing their social media participation.[1]

Birnbryer20 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cancel culture" is getting way more notoriety than "call-out culture"

As of this posting, there are 130k hits on Google News for "Cancel culture" and only 4k for "Call-out culture." IMHO, this article's title should be changed to "Cancel Culture" because it has become the dominant neologism for this phenomenon broadly.--Cainxinth (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cainxinth: You might want to look into WP:REQMOVE. I am open to changing this to "cancel culture" if we can generate some more discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally think the minor carry-on about call-out/cancel culture is all fluff, a throwaway term, a right-wing talking point. Michael Jackson was supposedly "cancelled", you'll still hear his music playing in shopping centers and at bars. Louis CK was supposedly "cancelled", still touring and very popular. Dave Chapel, Kevin Hart etc etc etc, all "cancelled" and still selling out shows and streaming on Netflix - It's a nonsense. I personally think the page should be deleted, Wikipedia is not a glossary of inane pop-culture terms that are briefly used by a small section of the media, soon to be forgotten. Call-out/Cancel, makes no difference to me, the two seem interchangeable and both are fluff not worthy of an article, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to AfD. The way I see Wikipedia is that if someone doesn't know what something means and it has been in RSs, they should be able to come here for a relatively neutral explanation rather than be forced to go to less impartial websites. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, although when an expression is popular it often remains, AfD would indeed be the right place to determine this. If you can find another article that is similar enough where this one could redirect to, this would also be worth evaluating. It was also interesting to see a source criticizing "cancel culture" summarized to represent "proponents of cancel culture", I tried to improve this. —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I revisited the previous AfD and noticed that you already tried, afterall. But also interesting were some suggestions there about potential merge targets like online shaming, boycott, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a merge into online shaming, I think it bares mentioning, but I don't think it warrants it's own article - it's already past it's use by date. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion started here, —PaleoNeonate – 06:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd oppose merging with online shaming. I added a link to online shaming to the article, but I think it is easier for people to find the term. Calling people out continues to be widely used in political discourse and in the vernacular. Birnbryer20 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Using blogs/ other "unreliable" sources?

Hi All,

I noticed that one of my sources was previously removed because it fell under the umbrella of an "unreliable" source. However, I think using digital media platforms, such as social media posts, blogs, or other sites, is important to the overall understanding of call-out culture, which is a phenomenon that started and evolved on these platforms. I may need to tweak wording a bit when utilizing those sources, but i think they would provide a lot of benefit to readers. Thoughts?

SumayyahGhori (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Feel free to raise your request at WP:RS/N. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Read up WP:USERGENERATED. Those kinds of sources will never pass muster. Bacondrum (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Change unpopular to hypocritical

I propose changing unpopular to hypocritical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birnbryer20 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense, it is a bit POV too. Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)