Wikipedia

Talk:Cancel culture/Archive 1

< Talk:Cancel culture
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Bobfrombrockley in topic Serious issues with sourcing
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Second possible definition which is not online shaming

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Cancel culture:

George Will used the term here. The article has become a redirect to Online shaming, which is not what Will was talking about. Gobonobo, who I asked for an opinion because of an apparent interest in Will's defintion of the topic, suggested part of the Call-out culture article. Bacondrum, who changed Cancel culture to a redirect, seemed to disagree that there was a second definition of the word that would justify a disambiguation page, but the definition doesn't fit under Online shaming. Here and here are sources that at least show there is a second definition.

I admit my adding 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning to a Cancel culture disambiguation page wasn't the best idea but I was hoping someone could come up with a better article to put there. Bacondrum properly restored the redirect because there wasn't a justification for what I did.

You can see our discussions here and here.

What is the proper action for making sure both definitions are covered?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to keep being a road block on this Vchimpanzee, but neither of those sources are reliable ( I should have addressed this when they were first presented). One is an opinionated primary source, the other is a christian conservative conspiracy-pseudoscience source owned by televangelist Pat Robertson who has been known to make controversial and false claims throughout his long television career. Faithwire is the antithesis of a reliable source. It wont just be me who challenges those sources, they are not reliable for anything other than George Will's opinion, and I can't see why his opinion would be due. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(End of posts copied)— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that these are not the best sources, but there are enough other suitable ones now that show that redirecting cancel culture to online shaming was a mistake, say this thorough Vox piece by Aja Romano:
A celebrity or other public figure does or says something offensive. A public backlash, often fueled by politically progressive social media, ensues. Then come the calls to cancel the person — that is, to effectively end their career or revoke their cultural cachet, whether through boycotts of their work or disciplinary action from an employer.
- i.e., the canceling is understood to be a "real life" action, separate from (and more serious than) the online shaming on social media.
This source also explains that cancel culture and call-out culture are not the same, and in fact explicitly calls our coverage here erroneous:
As cancel culture caught on, many members of the public, as well as the media, have frequently conflated it with other adjacent trends — especially “call-out culture.” - with "conflated" linking to the merger proposal that you (Bacondrum) enacted.
"Cancel culture and call-out culture are often confused not only with each other, but also with broader public shaming trends, as part of a collectivized narrative that all of these things are examples of trolling and harassment. [...] But while these ideas seem interchangeable at a glance, they’re different in important ways."
To answer Vchimpanzee's question: The best remedy seems to reinstate cancel culture as a separate article and work to better delineate the terms based on reliable sources such as the above.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Consensus was clear to merge, you'll need to achieve a new consensus to reinstate. I strongly oppose reinstating the article, unless the section in the online shaming article grows to the size where one would be justified - most importantly, with rock solid citations, not piles of op-eds and opinions pieces etc. When it last had its own page the article was poorly sourced and a POV battleground. I certainly wouldn't object to using Aja Romano's article to expand the section at online shaming, but lets not jump the gun by reinstating a poorly sourced article. Bacondrum (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I had to work with the sources I found, but I could have kept going and found more.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). People should be held accountable for their actions, whether they’re famous or not, but that canceling someone “takes away the option for them to learn from their mistakes and kind of alienates them.”

I'm not asking for a full article, but just acknowledgment somehwere that "cancel culture" is not limited to online shaming.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Will used the term again. He didn't make it up, but that much is becoming more clear. And he's not referring to online shaming.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You'll need to find more sources because an opinions piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact. You'll need to find a reliable secondary source. Bacondrum (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I know. Just pointing out this is evidence he didn't just make it up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Other definitions

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/21/entertainment/cancel-culture-explainer-trnd/index.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/cancel-culture-views-from-the-campus-11594767283 (debate which I can't access) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53311867 https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/ (opinion) https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-culture-boycotts-firings/index.html (Trump quote) https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-writers-activists-open-letter-call-to-end-cancel-culture — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Separate article

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

"Cancel culture" has taken on a specific, independent meaning revolving around "safe spaces/safe speech" vs free speech, which is imho specific and different enough to warrant its own article (rather than being a redirect to "online shaming"). It also goes beyond online shaming as it includes cancelling events in (physical) public spaces. Anyone else agree? Morgengave (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. See my other comments above assuming they haven't been archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the current section in online shaming improved and expanded with quality sources and a neutral POV, and if it expands to a well sourced article then that's great. I am going to fight the inclusion of any primary sources (opinion/analysis/op-ed) and undue examples tooth and nail. If there's no reliable secondary sources then it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. I'm firm on reliable secondary sources, it is one of the Wikipedia five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia". If we can find an authoritative and reliable secondary source that gives a clear definition as to what Cancel culture is that'd be a great place for us to start. An authoritative source would be a secondary source, written by an expert in the field - an academic, journalist (ie a news journalist who covers the US culture wars extensively) or author who's work has been through a peer review process or is subject to an editorial process - not a primary source ie an op-ed, opinion, analysis etc. which is the majority of sources we receive, every commentator has a hot take on this, but what we need is authoritative and reliable sources, not commentary and opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Morgengave "It also goes beyond online shaming as it includes cancelling events in (physical) public spaces. Anyone else agree?" It doesn't matter if anyone agrees, the only thing that matters is if you have a reliable, authoritative secondary source/sources that make that claim. On what source are you basing the edits you wish to make? We don't publish opinion, no matter how many editors agree with said opinion. ""Cancel culture" has taken on a specific, independent meaning revolving around "safe spaces/safe speech" vs free speech, which is imho specific and different enough to warrant its own article (rather than being a redirect to "online shaming")." Again, based on which reliable, authoritative secondary source/sources? "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." Bacondrum (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

My "anyone else agrees?" was not on whether there are authoritative sources - there are plenty - but on whether it should be a separate article rather than an elaborated subsection of the "online shaming" article. The creation of an article is always an area of judgement rather than fact, whence my call-out. Morgengave (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the sources are the right kind, it's time to stop talking about expanding "online shaming". For the thousandth time, online shaming is just one example of cancel culture.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Either way, you need to provide reliable sources if you want to expand or change the content. it is a core principal of this project. We reflect what reliable sources say, not our opinions. Morgengave "authoritative sources - there are plenty" that's great. Please share them with us and we can decide if there's enough content to create an article, or we can expand the current content. As it stands there's no evidence this is anything significant. Bacondrum (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This is one that wasn't there before. While isit says it's opinion, it's different from the others in that the entire article seems to define cancel culture.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This looks good. This looks like it could be a good source for a definition. Here is one that mentions the concept briefly but appears to be defining it without using the word, here is something that might be useful, here is something less useful, and here is something that helps define the term.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that editor Bacondrum has been partially blocked from editing this article.[1]. He has been vehemently decimating the cancel culture related articles on Wikipedia. So what the admins did is right. Hopefully this article can now be improved without the tendentious editing of the blocked editor. Oglaz (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically he was partially blocked from Online shaming, not here. But I'm sure administrators will view that as basically equivalent and include it if it comes to that. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Replying to a comment that was removed, I need to repeat that we are not talking about online shaming here. For the thousandth time, while I can't find the evidence that will satisfy everyone, it appears clear from usage that "cancel culture" is far more than online shaming, though it is a type of online shaming.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Vchimpanzee. I find it peculiar that the article was removed and redirected, and that this was done without a discussion on the talk page here. There is a valid argument for a separate article. For example, trying to block someone from speaking publicly is part of cancel culture, but not of online shaming. Morgengave (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We can let it develop at Online shaming, and in a few months, spin it out into its own article again once it's been improved more. Crossroads -talk- 20:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. No, we can't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not coatracking. It's per WP:Summary style: It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article. Crossroads -talk- 02:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to convince anyone that cancel culture is not a subtopic of online shaming, but online shaming is a type of cancel culture.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, as I said at Talk:Online shaming, I think it should be spun out eventually. Just not yet. In a few months would be good. Crossroads -talk- 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There are good reasons to create a separate article - and once it's a separate page, it'll likely grow quicker. Not meant as a loaded question, Crossroads, but why are you the decider on this? And why is the existence of a separate page so controversial in the first place? Morgengave (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a decider, just giving my opinion, same as anyone. If people are interested in expansion and splitting, I give some more information on that here: Talk:Online shaming#Expansion and possible eventual split of cancel culture material Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Research references on the Totalitarian nature of cancel culture is needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Not a lot it said about the underlying totalitarian nature of cancel culture. Is there any reasearch we can post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:D63:B29C:6D8:5029 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Academic research is starting to be produced on this topic. From Domina Petric[1]

Soft totalitarianism is as a term well described by Rod Dreher. It is a type of totalitarianism based on the cancel culture. Victim is culturally blocked from having a prominent public platform or career, and is canceled out from public, social and professional life.

WaderRoars (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That claim is patently absurd. That is a crackpot paper, which researchgate has tagged as not having been peer reviewed. I just tried to have a read and it's hyperbolic rubbish that compares American media to the Nazi's. The author is a medical specialist, not a relevant subject matter expert. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ResearchGate". ResearchGate. doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.28209.94561/3. Retrieved 2020-11-06.

how this page starts

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To my mind, the opening definition offered by this page seems inaccurate. I believe that when people use the term "cancel culture," they're referring to group actions: a bunch of people decrying a person (living or historical), a phenomenon, or a thing (like a statue). The page now opens by referring to a possible effect of cancel culture ("a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles"). While cancel culture affects the individuals targeted, it's a large-group phenomenon, the social-media-enabled power of small & relatively easy acts of "boo" & thumbs down. I'd suggest revising the opening to something along the lines of:

"Cancel culture (or call-out culture) refers to modern forms of [denouncing? decrying?] the actions of living or historical individuals deemed to have acted or spoken in questionable or controversial ways. [2][4][5][6][7] Cancel-culture denunciations generally occur online; nonetheless, they can cause significant social and professional consequences for those at the receiving end of their actions. Those who have been affected by such actions are said to be "canceled."[1] Merriam-Webster defines cancel as "to stop giving support to that person,"[2] and Dictionary.com defines it as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."[3] The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations, as those who use the term liken the phenomenon to censorship and online mob violence."Amanuenski (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Amenuenski. 9 november 2020!

I think that would be an improvement, it's a pretty muddy lede at the moment. Bacondrum (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of WP:SYNTH/WP:DUE examples

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Further information about the reasoning in this edit:

  • I aimed to remove just any poor examples on a case-by-case basis, being generous where a case could reasonably made that a reliable source made links to "cancel culture". What I found is that two full paragraphs (!) failed this simple test. I don't know that I've ever been more astonished at content not currently under discussion on an article read by thousands of people per day. However, the content was only introduced 10 days ago ([2]), by Guavabutter.
  • Reason tagging something as "cancel culture" is not part of the prose portion of the article and so there's both SYNTH/DUE issues.
  • Medium blogs are not reliable.
  • One incident only mentioned cancel culture in the following quote: Theirs was “not a joint effort to get finals canceled for non-black students,” the self-identified allies wrote, “but rather an ask that you exercise compassion and leniency with black students in our major.” [3] Thus, no source has been presented which argues that this is an example.
  • Closest occurrence to a relevant phrase for one incident is: The 17-year-old dancer, actor and frequent collaborator of Sia had been called out on social media. [4] Incidental use of a phrase close to "call-out" is not sufficiently relevant.

More foundational examples, with less reliance on taking right-wing bloggers at their word and more high-quality analysis of how the example is foundational or groundbreaking in the subject area, are needed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, that's just the beginning, this article has been a shocker. No one is discussing it because the article is a POV battleground from hell. Good luck fixing it, I'll certainly back any earnest attempt to make it resemble something encyclopedic. The sourcing has been all over the place and often unreliable (ie the Youtube cite you just removed, or Medium blog posts), its prose are still barely intelligible at times, the flow is bad, it has regularly been filled with piles of undue content in endless lists (thankfully not so bad at the moment). generally speaking its a badly sourced and poorly phrased POV nightmare. And the worst thing is, loads of people are reading this dogs breakfast of an article. For example we dedicate a section to the opinion of Connor Garel, writing for Vice. Vice is a dubious source, and who is Connor Garel, appears to have been a fresh faced kid getting his first few pieces published, hardly a noteworthy subject matter expert, his views are obviously undue. There's plenty more like that. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I dispute the neutrality of the article. Opposition to the use of the term and validity of the concept is not addressed. I recall the term being criticized as a catch-all, as used selectively, etc. Not much time to work on this now but I'm sure some of the references cover that. Fa suisse (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC) P.S.: see for instance [1][2]

I agree 110% This article is a dogs breakfast of undue claims, poor sourcing and blatant POV pushing. Frankly it's the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia and basically ignores guidelines and policy at every turn. I'm not going to go near the article with a ten foot pole, but blind Freddy could see this article is a tendentious mess. That being said, Bromwich is not a subject matter expert, if you look at the article it gives massively undue weight to the opinions of random, unknown punters like Connor Garel (I mean this is a kid who has had a few opinions pieces published in a questionable source), barely any attention has been paid to quality of sources or due weight of opinion in this article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope. We know from this and especially this ANI discussion that you think our only coverage of cancel culture should be one sentence from the dictionary, that you've falsely claimed that the only discussion of it is in op-eds and from the right wing lunatic fringe (I guess Barack Obama is a fringe right-wing lunatic now?), and that you promised that "I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further" (06:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) comment). So, we don't need unconstructive potshots from the talk page (which can hardly be described as "not going to go near the article with a ten foot pole". Crossroads -talk- 02:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Fa suisse, the section Cancel_culture#Debate_over_existence alones provides WP:BALANCE to the article in my opinion. WaderRoars (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads The world's smallest violin, is playing just for you. Bacondrum (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bromwich, Jonah Engel (2018-06-28). "Everyone Is Canceled". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 13, 2019. Retrieved 2020-07-04.
  2. ^ Brown, Dalvin. "Twitter's cancel culture: A force for good or a digital witchhunt? The answer is complicated". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2020-07-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I approached this article this weekend and after initial reaction of disdain for it, consulted friends with reliable credentials. They are of course of no value to anyone reading this, just underlining that my commenting this doesn't stem from immediate keyboard assault.

This article is garbage. Has no place on Wikipedia in this or even closely altered form. It is decidedly weighed to one, myopic side and take zero interest in the guidelines and values of Wikipedia.org Arcsoda (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability issues

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article suffers from a lot of issues, but I want to start with the most glaring one, notability. In the examples section we have a random example of Olivia Pierson, someone so obscure they do not even have a Wikipedia article. I think this example needs to be removed in its entirety as per WP:UNDUE.

Same again, in the open letter section, who is Dalvin Brown? Thier views are obviously not due as per WP:UNDUE. I propose removing any reference to this person and their opinion, while the letter may be due for inclusion (I'm not sure that it is, but that's another discussion), this obscure journalist and their opinion is obviously not, IMO. Bacondrum 06:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Brown's point is in USA Today, a reliable source, so it should be included, short as it is; we're obviously going to discuss that open letter regardless. It's not about him. I don't really care about the Pierson example, but we should have better examples like David Shor. [5] Crossroads -talk- 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think having an opinion published in USA Today makes that view noteworthy or due. I also think we should replace the entire examples section with notable examples, like Dave Chapelle and Rosanne Barr - rather than random obscure examples. I reckon there's been enough notable examples and there is now wider reportage and better sources discussing this subject, with this in mind I believe we can really get this article into much better shape now. Bacondrum 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

More Examples

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Currently, this article lists only two "cancelled" people. Can we start a list of people and discuss proposed edits?

1) Abraham_Lincoln SF school renaming. Charles Juvon (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A long list of people tends to attract editors trying to gut the article. And "cancellation" is usually applied to living people. Any additions should only be based on really good sources, like ones listed in green at WP:RSP and that are not opinion/editorial pieces. We really don't want any sort of indiscriminate list. Crossroads -talk- 04:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
What just happened to my first five people? Is this a Wedge_issue? Charles Juvon (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's anyone I'd suggest in particular, but I agree this article could definitely use some more examples of allegedly 'cancelled' people or organisations. Currently, both people mentioned are very obscure (one of them doesn't even have a Wikipedia page). I thought the term usually applied to famous people? It's hard to see how someone can be 'cancelled' when nobody's heard of them in the first place... Robofish (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that the examples given are completely random and better examples should be given, but definitely not more. One or two examples is ideal, three or four at most. Bacondrum (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This article is enough of a dogs breakfast and POV battleground without making arbitrary lists. Article already contains far too many indiscriminate and irrelevant examples, opinions and cruft. Many claims are cited to borderline outlets and authors with little or no subject matter expertise. I can't see how adding more cruft would do anything but worsen the quality of this messy, poorly cited and poorly written article. Bacondrum (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest the only examples we should give are the most prominent ie: Rosanne Barr, Dave Chapelle and maybe Louis CK or other similar high profile examples...notable cancellations of well known public figures that received widespread coverage. Nothing but the most prominent examples, the current ones are random and obscure and should be replaced with a short list of the most well known and widely reported examples. Now that the media hysteria has died down a little I think we can discern between all the hysteria and hyperbole and work towards a much better article. Bacondrum 06:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the article focus and coverage WP:WEIGHT should be more on topic than individual cases. This would be the nature and means, so would draw more from bits like BBC about it being weaponised and the cost, or Vox on why we fight over doing it, and NY Post on toxic trend and Forbes about it growing worse and NY Times or CBSnews on its history....
As to examples, I think WP:WEIGHT would only lead to a few such as Ellen Degeneres or JK Rowling. Individual cases just seem to get only passin note, such as the 2019 list from CNN and thethings 2020 list. And I would exclude politicians as that might tend to be more about partisan fighting rather than “cancel culture”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your points, I think if we are to have examples they should be the very notable examples, the current ones are odd choices, random and obscure. I also agree no politicians. I'll create a straw poll for notable examples. Bacondrum 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Related article

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Just pointing out at another related article, Deplatforming. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I reckon a small subsection on this neologism in the deplatforming article would make a lot more sense than dedicating an article to this subject, but heaven help the editor who tries to treat this neologism as the (already past its used by date) conservative talking point it actually is. Bacondrum 06:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Barack Obama, notoriously conservative and well loved by the right-wing. Anyway, really, while they are related and sometimes overlapping concepts, they are in fact distinct. There are numerous sources on it as well as criticism of the concept by moderates and even some on the left; that it also gets abused by some on the right-wing is irrelevant (and Wikipedia doesn't promote a left-wing POV anyway). Crossroads -talk- 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Could not agree more. This article has some very fundamental issues in its framing of the topic from the get-go. The phrase does not describe new behavior; only a new spin by certain contingents of the population. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
damn right Dfsghjkgfhdg. Bacondrum 02:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The current sentence suggests "cancel culture" is real, rather than an expression used by some who face criticism to denounce it (to self-victimize when facing valid criticism). There are sources supporting this, some were used in a previous version of this article before it was merged and recreated. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A bit difficult to completely follow WP:NOTFORUM here but adding a few details to explain the above: Someone's sales drop because of a boycott (evidence of a boycott, not of a culture of cancellation). Someone promotes harmful health practices or ideas and receives criticism or is not invited to speak again at that venue. Evidence of a deplatforming event? Maybe. Is this political correctness? Probably irrelevant if it's to prevent harm. Hardly evidence of a culture of cancellation. Also, flaming always existed and it may be easier than before to do it for anyone using electronic means, that is also why online shaming was a previously relevant merge target. "Cancel culture" expression advocates call for freedom of speech and cry censorship. Similarly to "academic freedom" when pushed to escape proper peer review, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, this article has long been an original research and POV nightmare, full of undue and completely random examples, unverifiable claims and random opinion, flimsy sources by random people who are not subject matter experts etc. Bacondrum 06:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Problem material does show up here, but it gets reverted in due time, and vague complaining won't help. Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll get specific below. I hope you can see I've learnt from my problems in the past and we can have a civil discussion about the issues with this article. Bacondrum 00:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The article has many sources discussing cancel culture as a phenomenon, as well as a few criticizing the concept. But that isn't grounds for changing the lead sentence per WP:DUE. We have many sources from qualified academics like psychologists, etc. At the risk of FORUMing some more, as for the idea that cancellation and similar behavior only happens to people who deserve it, well, that isn't true: [6][7][8] Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Added example. Crossroads -talk- 18:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:DUE does not support the current state of the article in the way you're suggesting. Simply noting that the contributors to the article have collected opinions from many people supporting one framing does not make that framing more notable or correct than other framings. The article should acknowledge the phrase as it is commonly discussed: acknowledging that a large portion of society has no concern for the perceived phenomenon and questions that it even meaningfully exists. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not mean that every target of criticism deserves it, but that noone is immune to it and its consequences (that is nothing new, with exceptions in some regimes where some people are above criticism, by law and enforcement), criticism is also part of free expression (and of course consumers can select where to buy when choice exists), of debates, of politics, of the scientific process, etc. By extension, "cancel culture" as used in complaints is also expression and can be presented as such. I just noticed the lead changes and think it's an improvement in the right direction, —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Serious issues with sourcing

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

So I hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about sourcing in this article. I've been told that vague complaining is useless, so I'm going to get very specific - I'm sure I've got some of this wrong and am happy to be corrected and discuss. There's so many issues with this article - I personally think cancel culture is just a right-wing talking point, a flavour of the month neologism, but that's my opinion. The most glaring issue here is the sourcing and the way it is being interpreted.

Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces

We have a lot of undue opinion and analysis. So, the following are problematic opinion and analysis citations (numbered so you can get an idea of just how poorly cited this article appears to be):

*3 - Online survey (not reliable at all)https://web.archive.org/web/20200722192513/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 Turns out this is a quality poll conducted by an organisation, Morning Consult with a reputation for accuracy.

That's 17 Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces, when really they should be used more sparingly.

Predatory publishers

We have one cite to a predatory publisher

evidence: [9]

Tertiary sources (Dictionaries)

We cite two dictionaries, which are [tertiary sources], so they can be used as reliable sources in limited situations, but these are not actually dictionary entries, rather they are web supplementary pages. These do not appear to be reliable sources, they seem to be more akin to blog entries:

Blogs

Reviews

Letters

I think this letter is given far more weight than it deserves

Not sure about these sources

  • Couldn't find much about this publisher, but looks legit.

https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:33351/

  • This seems like pretty crappy outlet, I don't know anything about it.

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/dixie-chicks-talk-cancel-culture-17-years-blacklisted-69617700

Reliable sources

Academic

Now to get to the sources that are actually rock solid reliable sources:

News

Survey

- Online survey - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722192513/https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000]]

And one more thing

This: "Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism" Says who? Bacondrum 00:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I just went through every source in the lede and none mention ostracism. Is there a source that describes Cancel culture as "a modern form of ostracism" or something similar anywhere in the article, I started going through and I've found nothing thus far, have I missed it? I didn't think we could make unverifiable claims like that, especially in the opening sentence, but I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum 04:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
We're supposed to summarize sources in our own words, so there's no need to find a source that uses the term "ostracism", because clearly that's what's being discussed. But if you need one, Bari Weiss uses it (see below). SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence in general isn't so good. "Ostracism" strikes me as either too specific or off the mark. The formulation "modern form of ostracism" calls back to the "old form" of ostracism, which is actually kicking someone out of town. That's not actually happening, of course. I guess we could play with that metaphor if we're specifically talking about, say, a Twitter account, but using our own metaphors doesn't seem particularly helpful when trying to summarize a contentious subject. Otherwise, what does it mean to "ostracize" a television show or song? If people complain but nothing is done, is it still a modern form of ostracism? The very next sentence says "cancel" means "stop giving support". That doesn't sound like ostracism. If we need to rely on Bari Weiss for sourcing our first sentence, that's not a great sign.
Which brings me to the rest of the first sentence: "in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person." So far we're calling it ostracism and then defining ostracism rather than cancel culture. There's nothing here about why people are being forced out, for example. It also isn't clear that "cancel culture" is to "holding people accountable by going after their platform/job" what "political correctness" is to "not using offensive language". I.e. it's nearly always a pejorative. This material is already in the lead, but displaced by the "ostracism" introduction. I've had a go at moving it around/rewriting it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted those changes, as the new lead seemed almost to justify it. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you elaborate (or respond to what I wrote)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
If you google ostracize and cancel, you'll find lots of sources. I'm in the process of looking at them. I'm not sure I understood your point. SarahSV (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites wholeheartedly, I don't think Cancel culture is a form of ostracism, the recent hoo-ha about Dr Suess for example, how does one ostracise a book? It was "cancelled", recalled, taken out of print, that's not ostracism, yet it's being widely described as the latest victim of cancel culture in the media [[10]] I think ostracism is a loaded word in this context and not NPOV or verifiable and the metaphor conjures images of something far more severe than being boycotted, like Themistocles being ostracised from athens. Rhododendrites version is more even handed and accurate "cancel culture" is a pejorative term for boycotts, deplatforming etc. Ostracism makes it sound like they've been expelled from the city walls, to wander the badlands in a desperate struggle for survival, unable to ever return for fear of death :D. Bacondrum 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What I was most hoping for elaboration on is the rationale for the revert that it "seemed to almost justify it." Justify what? The phenomenon of "withdrawing support" using boycotts, public shaming, and calls for consequences for public figures whose actions or language people find offensive? The expression used primarily to criticize those activities as part of a "woke" agenda that threatens free speech? Or are we operating under the assumption that the subject here is something like, borrowing a term and trope which serves a similar purpose, "political correctness run amok", and that we should be describing it as such? The latter would make sense if we're prioritizing sources like opinion pieces by Bari Weiss in Deseret News, but not if we're primarily looking at the best sources (either in the article or not yet in the article). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I think this is the core problem with the large number of opinions and analysis citations we use. The article reads as opinionated rather than NPOV. We have so many academic papers on this now (which we didn't have earlier on in the articles development), I think we can and should upgrade a lot of the opinionated sources and claims and instead cite and reflect academic sources (especially seeing how controversial and difficult to define this topic can be). Bacondrum 23:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This article describes the history of it. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and to support your reversion, this was majorly POV. It indeed justifies the practice by claiming that it is mere "accountability" (opponents and observers of extreme examples might be more inclined to call it bullying or harassment) and that what the person is getting canceled for was in fact offensive, when only a few people are calling it so.
Anyone who's thinking that cancellation only happens to actual bigots should read this: [11] This source can and should be used in the article; "call in" and "calling out" are different terms for the same phenomenon of cancellation. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the same exact same WP:TE approach that got you in trouble before; politeness alone was never the issue. See the first and second ANI threads on this matter; both note that you were tendentiously trying to cut the material on this topic down to basically nothing. The second one led to you being blocked from Online shaming for 3 months, which is where this material used to reside. You also promised there, I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. The same issue is evident in the analysis above, including labeling of sources as op-eds that are not, disparaging dictionaries as sources, disparaging the perfectly valid Politico survey, and use of WP:UNDUE as a cudgel to remove WP:Reliable sources (UNDUE only applies if the view in the source is far outweighed by other sources because it is about the weight of reliable sources; it alone cannot exclude reliably sourced views entirely). That you are not familiar with the authors of some of these reliable sources is not relevant. If there a few clearly garbage sources, then fine, those can go. But the fact is that the vast majority of what is listed above are WP:Reliable sources, period. It's also evident by now that most editors do not agree with your years-long approach to this topic, so you may want to read WP:SATISFY. Regarding I personally think cancel culture is just a right-wing talking point, a flavour of the month neologism, abuse of the concept by right-wing pundits doesn't invalidate what other sources, the 153 signers of the Harper's Letter, and people like Barack Obama say, and it can hardly be flavor-of-the-month when it's been around for years. Crossroads -talk- 03:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
So you're not willing to discuss, just to attack me? Please remove the personal attacks and discuss content. I really hoped you and me could discuss rather than just fight. Bacondrum 04:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Op eds

Picking up on one point Crossroads said, can you explain why you disputed 3 in op-eds as "Online survey (not reliable at all)"? I had a look at the source and it looks to me like a typical professional Opinion poll with attempted to adjust for sample bias etc. It may be conducted online, I don't know, but your description makes it sound like it's some sort of Open-access poll i.e. it's just a tally of results on a poll on their website which this doesn't seem to be. Looking further, I see from our article Morning Consult, it does seem their political political has been noted to be extremely accurate in the past. I don't know whether the particular poll involved is equally well respected, but the issue is surely nothing to do with whether it's online but whether their methodology is sufficiently robust. As our article attests, opinion polls however they are conducted are always imperfect. In particular, my understanding is polling of this sort, whether telephone, online, whatever is always questionable since there's basically no way to test the accuracy of results unlike election polling where you regularly get to check how accurate you were. (You get similar problems with polls on referendums they are often far less reliable than polls on candidates or parties.) Even if the poll is acceptable, this doesn't mean it has to be included. In other words, there could be reasoned arguments over whether it should be included. But I can understand the frustration with your analysis if your reasons for dismissing it seem flawed or misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nil Einne, thanks for your response regarding the online survey. That's exactly what I wanted to ascertain, the quality and type of poll we were using, polls are always a red flag for me as so many are conducted in a dubious manner (online polls etc.). I can see now that this is a high quality poll and is perfectly fine. I believe all the sourcing in this article should be reviewed in light of how many opinions, op-eds, analysis, predatory publishers, blogs etc are used. My aim is to have a civil conversation about the sources, separate the wheat from the chaff (I'm not willing to discuss myself or any other editors as per policy) - I think the sourcing at this article should be reviewed, that is all, nothing sinister. Thanks again. Bacondrum 22:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

I think that tertiary sources above are actually important and should be used (because they summarize consensus of secondary sources), and many other "news" or "opinion" sources are also good and can be used for this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi My very best wishes I think we rely excessively on op-eds, opinion and analysis as is. I'm not opposed to citing some opinion and analysis, but we currently cite around half the article to these kinds of sources. This is a contentious subject, I believe we can and should be using better quality sourcing here, plus we can probably thin some of these without removing the claims as there are multipul citations in some cases. Bacondrum 22:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The two dictionary entries are not actually dictionary entries, they are more like blog posts: [12] and [13] plus we cite two actual blogs, I believe these [14], [15] should be removed per WP:BLOGS. Bacondrum 22:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

One last thing, "other "news" or "opinion" sources are also good and can be used for this subject." which ones specifically? We can give them a look over and move the good ones into the reliable section. Bacondrum 22:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Predatory sources

  • Predatory publisher - So what do editors think of this source:

https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/calling-in-not-calling-out/163988 According to this paper it is a predatory publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 Any thoughts PaleoNeonate, Nil Einne and My very best wishes Bacondrum 03:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Given large number of publications in this area, focusing on academic sources (not predatory of course) is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
So, My very best wishes do you think the article I mention above is published by a predatory publisher? I really want to know what other editors think of these sources. This paper seems to be saying that the publisher, igi-global, is a predatory publisher https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 what do you think? Bacondrum 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like they might do some stuff with compiling books as a "vampire" press to increase the number of places someone can say they are published, but in general their journal offerings look reasonable. It's not a normal "vanity" press in that they don't charge the submitter for publishing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Blogs

Re this comment: plus we cite two actual blogs, I believe these [16], [17] should be removed per WP:BLOGS. The website of the an article by an academic expert[18] on the website of the Political Studies Association is not a blog. Plus it is reprinted from a more academic periodical, published by Sage:[19] I don't think Mashable is a blog either is it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancel_culture/Archive_1&oldid=1019755267"