Talk:Online shaming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why the reluctance to have any proper discussion of 'cancel culture' or the behaviour covered by the term?

Good faith editors cannot be expected to have to deal with attacks and rants like this. There is no way that this rant can lead to productive discussion that would improve the article. If desired, try again in a calm, polite, thoughtful and productive manner. More rants and personal attacks will result in an indef block. Hatting instead of removing because another admin restored it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As someone who doesn't really engage in editing socio-political articles on this site, it is interesting that there is such an unwillingness to consider any serious exploration of 'cancel culture' or the behaviour that is covered by this term. I was willing to believe that time was being taken to ensure that the topic was covered as neutrally as possible, but ultimately the language on the talk page speaks for itself (all emphases in the quotations below are entirely mine): "Call-out/cancel culture" is just a buzzword that's already fading away. Nothing significant ever came of it. Doesn't warrant an entire article. The article has mostly been used as a whipping post for random partisan frustrations. Bacondrum (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC) [Given that we're still discussing it six months later, the "buzzword" clearly hasn't faded away] How are these criticisms WP:NPOV and why are these particular views WP:DUE? Everyone has a hot take on these things at the moment, if we allow this sort of selective claim it'll end up being a dogs breakfast of pro and con quotes and criticisms, this kind of quote farming lends itself to POV editing. We are here to describe the subject of an encyclopedic topic in an encyclopedic manner, not add random quotes, examples or criticisms to present our own POV. We should be matter of fact about this, what is it, how is it used etc. not list reams of peoples views on whether it is good or not. We don't publish opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC) [I would say that the constant suppression of any attempt to expand the "Call-outs and cancellation" subsection beyond one sentence with sources that don't give an overly good idea of what the 'cancel culture' term actually entails is its own POV editing and cannot be exactly viewed as "describ[ing] the subject of an encyclopedic topic in an encyclopedic manner". Biased editors "don't publish opinion", but they certainly allow it to have undue influence when making editing decisions.] I'm not sure there's really much more to say about 'cancel culture', which seems to me more of a meme or buzzword than a serious topic. But if you think there is, by all means feel free to add to the article. Robofish (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC) [Yes, "by all means feel free to add to the article", it's not like biased editors will undo your addition later on. Also, why are you so intent on dismissing the 'cancel culture' term as a meme or buzzword instead of examining the behaviour covered by the term?] I agree with Robofish, it might be a hot term in right-wing op-eds, but it doesn't amount to much, just a buzzword. Boycotts and call-outs are nothing new. The main issue was thaty [sic] few reliable secondary articles discuss...in-fact I don't think any really solid sources discuss it. It's all just opinion pieces and op-eds. Bacondrum (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC) [So apparently, such liberal stalwarts of reliability as the NYT and the Washington Post stop being liberal or reliable when they cover 'cancel culture' or broader online shaming in a way that isn't convenient to biased Wikipedia editors. Also, why are you so intent on dismissing the 'cancel culture' term as a meme or buzzword instead of examining the behaviour covered by the term?] Agreed - not only that, but there are certain words used "Woke Mob" that are cited as coming from a BBC article, but no such verbiage exists in the article, and the article itself isn't even about "cancel culture", but a vaguely related similar thread. This reeks, REEKS of rightwing provocateurs attempting to use wikipedia to shift the overton window. Imagine if millions of people google "cancel culture", end up at "online shaming" and see it blamed on the [implied to be leftwing] "woke mob"[cited with a fake citation], how is that not literally meeting the definition of shifting the overton window towards facism,[sic] exactly as the right attempts to do on all sorts of pages all day every day? - 84.65.54.106 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC) [Trying to have 'cancel culture' properly covered is not shifting the Overton window, if anything the suppression of attempts to have 'cancel culture' properly covered could be seen as shifting the Overton window towards blind and unthinking acceptance of 'cancel culture', and of course 'cancel culture' is its own form of Overton window manipulation where it is hoped that, if enough people etc. are 'cancelled' for not being in line with leftist dogma, leftist dogma becomes completely unchallengeable and no one would dare raise any opposition to it. Also, I've only ever seen the "woke mob" resort to 'cancel culture' and said mob is a broadly left-wing group that employs 'cancel culture' in response to anything challenging left-wing dogma. Unlike you however, I am willing to stand corrected if an example can be provided where someone who uttered a banal and relatively inoffensive opinion that was contrary to mainstream right-wing dogma was successfully discomfited as a result of right-wing 'cancel culture'... unless of course your average right-winger isn't actually someone that would demand people with opposing viewpoints be subject to all manner of social, financial and legal consequences unless actual threats of violence are expressed as part of those viewpoints. And while the 'leftists are the true fascists' trope is tired, the fascist smear was employed here by someone who is clearly a leftist, so I do feel that I'm free to ask this - don't you think that 'cancel culture' as currently instigated is its own form of fascism, and don't you think that supression of any attempt to have expansive coverage of 'cancel culture' on Wikipedia is its own form of fascism?] Absolutely, that version was only there briefly. Don't worry, this page is watched by a number of editors who regularly revert this kind of vandalism. This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment. I think for them it's a real "gotcha" moment, but for anyone pushing that POV there's bad news, call-outs and boycotts are not new and exciting things, the terms are barely discussed in reliable secondary sources, they're just stupid buzzwords, and we aren't here to write a dictionary of inane terms used in op-eds and opinions pieces. All claims cited with analysis, op-eds, opinions, and any claims that are not even mentioned in relevant citations (which happens heaps at this article) will be promptly removed Bacondrum (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC) [Well, talk about the mask slipping. Thank you for effectively admitting that there is suppression of anything that would amount to a proper discussion of 'cancel culture', that you and other biased editors are prepared to maintain this suppression, and that any attempt to introduce proper discussion will be immediately dismissed as "vandalism" that is propagated by a "lunatic fringe".] The only thing that is mematic or buzzwordish about 'cancel culture' is the actual term, derived from op-eds etc. in recent years where leftist individuals have declared and/or demanded that various persons, companies, institutions etc. are 'cancelled' for being actively opposed to leftist dogma, not being strident enough in their promotion of and kowtowing to leftist dogma, or some other real or imagined transgression against leftist dogma. Beyond that, there is a phenomenon, ongoing for a number of years, where social media users, typically of a left-wing persuasion, brigade together and wrathfully wax lyrical whenever someone is deemed to have said or done something that is deemed to be in breach of a given political dogma or a taboo that is either deemed particularly heinous within a given political dogma or is only perceived as a taboo within a given political dogma. Quite regularly, this results in the person who committed the offending deed being fired, being sidelined or passed up in relation to work opportunities, or (in countries where there is no legal right to free speech and/or there are hate speech laws that are so poorly and/or widely defined that anything deemed to be even slightly offensive is fair game) facing criminal liability. Hence its popularity as a tactic; people who dare to commit a transgression against the dogma are seen to be punished (and often are indeed punished), while those "whose minds are fixed on pelf and place" see that to speak out against the dogma is to risk pelf and place and so offer no challenge to the dogma or indeed allow themselves to fall under the dogma. It might be bog-standard old-fashioned online shaming, albeit with a political twist. It might have taken on a sufficiently insidious and Salem-esque character in recent years that it deserves to be distinguished from regular online shaming, with 'cancel culture' being a suitable term owing to leftist social media brigading being the primary ongoing example of such online shaming and to the term's basis in actual leftist language as outlined above. Regardless, there needs to be an acknowledgement of this phenomenon. Engaging in WP:POV editing, while accusing those you censor or suppress of being WP:POV, is not acknowledgement of this phenomenon. It is also interesting that there are no examples of online shaming in action in an article about online shaming. According to the edit logs and this talk page, WP:EXAMPLEFARM is cited as the reason, but even under that policy a few examples are allowed. Post-April revisions of this article have no examples at all, even though Bacondrum continuously (and ironically) cited the language of WP:EXAMPLEFARM when excising the examples. Not only is this censorship of something that has clearly become inconvenient ('can't be made to admit that politicised online shaming, regardless of how it is described, is a thing if I remove all examples of politicised online shaming'), but it leads to knowledge gaps and a reduction in Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia. For example, if someone wanted to read about Justine Sacco, an early victim of what would now be called 'cancel culture', typing 'Justine Sacco' would lead to that someone being redirected to this article... which, as a result of the examples list being excised in its entirety, currently has no mention of Justine Sacco. Someone like me might think to simply trawl through the edit logs until the [revision] is found, but the average Wikipedia reader is unlikely to do so. Now, Justine's case and a few of the other cases that were previously included in the article were cited from sources that one would expect are considered reliable (at least in liberal and left-wing circles anyway) and are certainly deemed reliable for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles, but leaving those examples up was clearly inconvenient to someone. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:CRUFT cannons away, and for bonus irony points and additional obfuscation let's have the WP:POV cannon away too even though excising the examples in their entirety might be seen as WP:POV in its own right. So what if Barack Obama, that icon of modern liberalism, made critical commentary on 'cancel culture' online shaming and these comments were promptly reported in such reliable sources as the Business Insider and the BBC? So what if some NYT writer examines how virulent the cancellation of public figures is for some perceived transgression? It's inconvenient to biased editors, ergo let's shut down any attempt to include this and other commentary. I humbly await being told how what I have written is complete hogwash, how noteworthy examples were not at all noteworthy and were not all purged from the article because it was inconvenient to keep them up, how reliable sources are not in fact reliable sources, how me not sharing biased editors' opinion on cancel culture being a buzzword and a nothingburger means that I'm a member of the "lunatic fringe" (I mean, I could talk about how I agree that federal agents in Portland riding around in unmarked vehicles and arresting people without giving a reason or even identifying themselves or their agency is wrong, or how the political right in Poland would be far better off if it stopped being the de facto political wing of the Catholic Church in Poland and stopped peddling Germanophobia and/or Russophobia whenever a serious political contender appears on the opposing side, but that'd just be ignored out of hand so why bother?), how biased editors are not biased despite me quoting their own statements where they demonstrate their bias, and various other things that, in all probability, will only prove that there is an editorial bias on this issue and that recent discussion around 'cancel culture' has these biased editors riled. I won't go so far as to suggest that these biased editors themselves engage in 'cancel culture', hence their reluctance to see it being acknowledged in any way, shape, or form on Wikipedia, but one does get the impression that a nerve has been touched.Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Dvaderv2 We are not here to discuss or analyse, this is an encyclopedia, not a university thesis. If you do have anything to offer, other than personal attacks and forum discussions, please remember: opinion, analysis and editorials will not cut it with such a contentious subject, you need WP:RELIABLE secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for creating this article, it has long been needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 August 2015‎

Yes, good work here, User:Callinus. --McGeddon (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable examples section reads like tabloids...

Is it really necessary to have these examples? Many don't seem that notable. Maybe we should limit the article to examples that are notable enough to merit their own wikipedia article Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Online shaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140530043135/http://www.suopei8.com/news/2008/0522/article_1477.html to http://www.suopei8.com/news/2008/0522/article_1477.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ocean Marketing/N-Control Avenger?

I can't help but feel that the whole Ocean Marketing Fiasco from Penny Arcade should be on here. 75.99.27.218 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Galuna

Proponents of online shaming, Who?

Obviously, there are lots of people practicing public shaming but is there a single book, speech, or article advocating online shaming as an appropriate method of punishment for bad behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecky333 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can find such a defence, by all means add it to the article. 'Online shaming' is usually considered a bad thing; but I'm sure there are people who'd argue it's justified in cases of criminality or otherwise seriously unethical behaviour, if it deters others from behaving that way in future. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe relevant would be the thread below: in the case of Call-out culture, one of the POV was that of the criticized who condemn "cancel culture", calling critics "proponents of cancel culture" (they call for unhindered free speech and liberty but cannot accept the same of others like valid criticism); another POV is that it's mainly right-wing complaints and that "cancel culture" doesn't really exist but is an argument to delegitimize criticism. The proposition below is to merge it with this article. —PaleoNeonate – 08:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge Call-out culture in Online shaming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge, with only two firm objections. Bacondrum (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• Call-out culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Call-out culture (previously Cancel culture), was nominated at AfD with consensus to keep on grounds that it was notable enough (discussion). During the process various merge suggestions were made, including with this article. Considering that both the AfD nominator and I consider merging here to be sensible, I'm starting this merge discussion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge "Call-out/cancel culture" is just a buzzword that's already fading away. Nothing significant ever came of it. Doesn't warrant an entire article. The article has mostly been used as a whipping post for random partisan frustrations. Bacondrum (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. It makes sense to merge them. The sources I'm aware of address them as one phenomenon. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Don't Merge. Linking is a better option. People will still search for Call-out Culture and it is used in the vernacular, and increasingly in research. Birnbryer20 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  If it was merged, the redirect would subsist and would likely point to a relevant section of this article, as pointed out below. This means that it would still show up in search results. —PaleoNeonate – 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak merge. It is a similar concept, and overall, merging them seems fine unless someone can present a scholarly works or such that makes it clear there is a significant difference. But I'd strongly recommend that redirect and anchors from terms call-out culture and cancel culture are kept and point into the anchor section based on that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This article is already pretty long and has a lot of examples. Examples were entirely scrubbed from Call-out culture. Not sure these are quite compatible articles for merger. Certainly, call-out/cancel culture is a subset of (or at least closely related to) online shaming. I think I might like to see the examples restored to Call-out culture and it moved (back) to "Cancel culture" and just linked from here. There could be a brief section on this article which points to the "main" article. Otherwise I think I would like to see those deleted examples added here if we are to discuss it here, and there are to be examples of anything in this article. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi DIYeditor, Call-out culture had it's examples culled for good reason, they were excessive and many were cruft. This article needs the examples cut as per WP:EXAMPLEFARM "One, or at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice. Examples help readers expand their understanding of a concept, and typifying it. Before adding yet another example, pause to ask whether it will help readers unravel the many facets of the concept, or drag them into needless detail specific only to that example, thus deviating from the central theme of the concept." Bacondrum (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge I don't know how they got to be considered as separate things anyways, at least feature "cancel culture" in this article 24.220.61.241 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Don't Merge. These are clearly seperate concepts, and this feels like an attempt at removing this article, in spite of the AfD consensus.Rody1990 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Example Farm

I'm going to go ahead and remove the majority of examples given on this page. It's mostly cruft. Much of it is WP:POV. Removing as per WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:CRUFT and WP:EXAMPLEFARM "One, or at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice" It reads terrible, it's indiscriminate and the article is supposed to describes the subject, not list random examples. Bacondrum (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed and audited and don't have objections. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

From the cancellation section: "...leading to declines in any careers and fanbase the individual may have at any given time." This seems like conjecture and is in need of an example or a better citation. Not sure how to proceed, but wanted to note this. 174.44.106.14 (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that is merely opinion. I'll remove it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2020 July 9 (UTC)

Please do not add quotes, examples or criticisms

Everyone seems to have a hot take on these buzzwords at the moment. What random selections of people think about it is irrelevant. We are here to write an encyclopedic entry on online shaming, not grind an axe. This has been a problem in the past, we are not building an example farm or a soap box. Describe the subject/subjects, I personally agree that much of the behavior discussed in this article is juvenile at best, but we are not here to critique or push a certain point of view. Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Open letter signed by 150 public figures

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Remove POV edits. We are here to describe encylopedic subjects, not add as many POV opinions about the subject as possible. Opinions are like...we all have one". I think info is relevant and should be included.

The former President Barack Obama warned against social media call-out culture, saying that "People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and, you know, share certain things with you."

Harper's Magazine published an open letter on 7th July 2020, signed by 150 public figures, setting out arguments against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tobby72. How are these criticisms WP:NPOV and why are these particular views WP:DUE? Everyone has a hot take on these things at the moment, if we allow this sort of selective claim it'll end up being a dogs breakfast of pro and con quotes and criticisms, this kind of quote farming lends itself to POV editing. We are here to describe the subject of an encyclopedic topic in an encyclopedic manner, not add random quotes, examples or criticisms to present our own POV. We should be matter of fact about this, what is it, how is it used etc. not list reams of peoples views on whether it is good or not. We don't publish opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Callout/cancel culture sources

• Nguyen, Brandon (2020). "Cancel Culture on Twitter: The Effects of Information Source and Messaging on Post Shareability and Perceptions of Corporate Greenwashing". Wharton Research Scholars.
• Ohlheiser, Abby; Izadi, Elahe (September 18, 2019). "Analysis – A step-by-step guide to why people can't stop arguing about 'cancel culture'". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286.
• Romano, Aja (December 30, 2019). "Why we can't stop fighting about cancel culture". Vox. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
• Waldman, Katy (March 21, 2019). "In Y.A., Where Is the Line Between Criticism and Cancel Culture?". The New Yorker. Retrieved July 12, 2020.

In addition to the sources already in the article, plopping a few additional sources here per a discussion on my talk page. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is “Cancel Culture” just a minor sub-bullet/after-thought vs its own page?

I am not a regular editor or commenter on Wikipedia. I am your standard, educated and relatively “in touch” reader and visitor. And with the relevance and frequency at which the phenomenon of “cancel culture” is popping up in conversations all over America, I was deeply puzzled—and then troubled—that it was brushed under the carpet by other Wiki-editors. “De-platformimg” has its own massive page, with a history and notable examples. And yet something like Cancel Culture—which I haven’t heard mentioned in the media and real-life conversations until recently—gets hardly a passing reference.

Whoever doesn’t want to give this phenomenon a fair write-up is clearly doing it for political reasons and not FAIR journalistic relevancy reasons. The “editors” who oppose it—are the people who side with its usage to SHUT DOWN and SHUT UP politically incorrect and conservative viewpoints. So, in a not-so-subtle way, Wikipedia and its editors are deploying a preemptive cancel culture on “Cancel Culture.”

Put your politics aside and give this important and ubiquitous topic its fair shake and post an editorially unbiased article on it.

I was shocked to see that when you Google “cancel culture,” there’s barely anything on Wikipedia. And I come to Wikipedia for my first foray into these things. I and millions of other people are doing the same thing, and we are all scratching our heads and wondering why Wikipedia has this wrong. If you disagree, then you are wildly out of touch or your politics are getting in the way. Sheppy75 (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really much more to say about 'cancel culture', which seems to me more of a meme or buzzword than a serious topic. But if you think there is, by all means feel free to add to the article. Robofish (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Robofish, it might be a hot term in right-wing op-eds, but it doesn't amount to much, just a buzzword. Boycotts and call-outs are nothing new. The main issue was thaty few reliable secondary articles discuss...in-fact I don't think any really solid sources discuss it. It's all just opinion pieces and op-eds. Bacondrum (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Call-out culture is not synonymous with online shaming

If you look up "call-out culture" or "cancel culture" and end up on this article, you might conclude that it explicitly describes all internet-based harassment. This is too broad of a generalization, especially because that definition broadly encompasses everything from the Star Wars Kid to celebrity sex tapes.

The terms "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" need to be removed from the introductory sentence of this article and either given their own section or their own article altogether. This is a complex subject that will require a lot of scrutiny to be described fairly, but there are plenty of sources from the news and elsewhere that can be used to at least start attempting to come up with a specific and credible definition for these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CEF0:6920:6C05:5834:7FFB:6431 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - not only that, but there are certain words used "Woke Mob" that are cited as coming from a BBC article, but no such verbiage exists in the article, and the article itself isn't even about "cancel culture", but a vaguely related similar thread. This reeks, REEKS of rightwing provocateurs attempting to use wikipedia to shift the overton window. Imagine if millions of people google "cancel culture", end up at "online shaming" and see it blamed on the [implied to be leftwing] "woke mob"[cited with a fake citation], how is that not literally meeting the definition of shifting the overton window towards facism, exactly as the right attempts to do on all sorts of pages all day every day? - 84.65.54.106 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)I dont know how to make an account so ive done this anonymously

Absolutely, that version was only there briefly. Don't worry, this page is watched by a number of editors who regularly revert this kind of vandalism. This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment. I think for them it's a real "gotcha" moment, but for anyone pushing that POV there's bad news, call-outs and boycotts are not new and exciting things, the terms are barely discussed in reliable secondary sources, they're just stupid buzzwords, and we aren't here to write a dictionary of inane terms used in op-eds and opinions pieces. All claims cited with analysis, op-eds, opinions, and any claims that are not even mentioned in relevant citations (which happens heaps at this article) will be promptly removed Bacondrum (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing: "Cancel Culture" as a phrase is becoming more widespread and should be a separate article. It is not restricted to online (it can happen through the mainstream media) and it is not really about shaming. Adpete (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Adpete So, what changes do you propose, based on which reliable, secondary sources? There's nothing stopping the expansion of content based on reliable, secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This one for a start: "Cancel culture — the social media phenomenon that takes user outrage and transforms it into a large-scale rejection of a celebrity’s work, product or place in pop culture".[1] That definition is nothing about shaming (and the words "shame", "shaming" etc do not appear in the article), and about actions which did not take place online. I can see the resemblances to online shaming but in other ways (e.g. applying to Bill Cosby) it is very different. Adpete (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN: Here are just some of the people who were canceled or threatened with cancellation in 2019; Financial Review (Australia): Why cancel culture can't take a joke; New York Post: Social justice warriors are waging a dangerous ‘Cancel Cultural Revolution’. None of them are really about online shaming; they are all discussing something very different. And as this Wikipedia article stands, the definition is pretty accurate ("The act of canceling, also referred to as cancel culture (a variant on the term "callout culture"), is a form of boycott in which an individual (usually a celebrity) who has acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner is boycotted."), but there is nothing explaining how it is a form of online shaming. Adpete (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you may have a point about it not being strictly online. What do other editors think? Perhaps an RFC is called for. I don't object to it having its own article per se. I just don't think we've seen enough significant discussion in secondary sources to warrant one. The subject seems to be primarily discussed in opinions columns rather than being a real thing. The sources you've provided are a case in point, it is all opinion, primary sources - CNN, the Fin Review and New York Post articles are all opinion pieces and the NBC one is an op-ed. These could be used for an attributed quote, but then the authors have no particular expertise in the field (at least none that I'm aware of). Perhaps go through the current sourcing for the section. There are some academic sources that have been used and may well confirm that this is not strictly an online thing.

I agree the Financial Review and NY Post articles are purely opinion pieces, and only really useful for establishing how usage works. But the other two I would not call opinion pieces or primary sources: the CNN one lists various cancelling events, and the NBC one provides a bit of analysis, and appears to do it pretty neutrally. It is all so recent that academic pieces will be hard to find, and even defining who an "expert in the field" is would not be easy (though the NBC article quotes two academics). I can see that you have been working against POV additions, but the fact that a subject attracts POV editors should not prevent Wikipedia from having an article about it. Adpete (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm glad you can see I act in good faith here. Those sources are only any good for attributed quotes, and the authors opinions would be undue. An expert in the field would be 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 proscess or is subject to an editorial process. As I have said, I'm happy to see the current section improved and expanded with quality sources and a neutral POV, and if it expands to a well sourced article then that's great. 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. I'll also have a look for a clear description of what it is exactly next time I have some spare time. Bacondrum (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Hatting discussion started by block-evading user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It looks like it got decimated in the past few months. For comparison, look at a past revision [2] which was rather encyclopaedic. Oglaz (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC) The previous talk page section explains it. We shouldn't bring back everything though. If it's poorly sourced then we don't need it back. Crossroads -talk- 22:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Call-outs and cancellation : are polls opinions and undue viewpoints ?

Bacondrum alleges that poll questions on "cancel culture" in a recurring US electoral poll conducted by Morning Consult for Politico constitute an opinion ("Your opinion is not a reliable source. Jesus wept" followed by "Don't WP:EDITWAR, your edits have been challenged as uncited (you've added opinion as a references) and WP:UNDUE why have one random survey included? Take it to talk" after I reverted the edit). How does a poll constitute an opinion ? And calling the poll "a random survey" is certainly not an argument that would fall under WP:UNDUE. Fa suisse (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. The poll is undue, we have a section on Cancel Culture that describes the subject, then a random poll about who likes/dislikes the subject. That is undue, IMO. The opinion I refer to is this being used as a citation, it is not a citation, it is opinion...actually I don't even think it is even opinion, it looks like a question?: "As you may know, cancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming. To what extent do you approve or disapprove of people participating in cancel culture?" Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You first reverted my edit due to the presence of an opinion, which you now make explicit. The reference you just mentioned is not anyone's opinion, but one of the questions put in the poll. I added the quote because the way such questions are phrased is important, given the contention surrounding the notion of "cancel culture". Thus, I reverted your edit, as there is no opinion, only references to a poll, an article about the poll, and a quote of one of the poll's questions. Then, you reverted my edit again by adding another motive, that of undue weight. The notion of "cancel culture" is politicised (I now see that various references mentioned this in previous versions of the article (when the section we are now discussion was an article), which you and others edited down to the current dictionary definition). In light of the controversy surrounding the topic, especially in the United States, it seems natural to include information from a poll. You argue that the paragraph on a poll doesn't seem to have a clear link with what precedes, but that doesn't mean it includes no information worth of being included in the article, and I am ready to resurrect some deleted references and add some content to make the link clearer. Finally, regarding the inclusion of "one random survey" (which has been discussed in other media), I have not found any other poll specifically referencing cancel culture. Have you ? Fa suisse (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey mate, it's nothing personal, just a disagreement about article content. You put ref tags on the question, so whether you were aware or not, you were using it as a reference - it appeared in the reference list. Thanks for clearing that up, it was very confusing (hence the Jesus wept comment...it really did look like it was meant as a reference). I reverted your edit because the content is undue and it appeared to reference an opinion (turns out it was a question, still not a ref). Now you need to discuss the edits as per the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, your edit was reverted, now we are discussing, all going well so far. I don't see how the poll is due, we are here to describe encyclopedic subjects, not randomly add opinion polls about the subject. If the subject was an upcoming election I wouldn't object to a poll as undue, but as it stands a poll about a neologism for boycotts is odd to say the least and I think it is undue. Lets see what other editors think. Bacondrum (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You are completely accurate in your observation that this is a politicised and controversial subject. I'd recommend bringing any content you plan to "resurrect" here along with reliable and authoritative secondary sources and discussing those additions first, though you are under no obligation to do so. Bacondrum (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fa suisse I have restored the material. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for letting me know, Crossroads, I am working on the paragraph now to highlight its relevancy to the topic. Fa suisse (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Its a very touchy subject. I feel the best way to go about it is to describe issues that follow along with what we know as cancel culture. I made some edits that reflect the differences from Cancel culture and Boycotting as it can be confused as the same thing. To me, as someone who actively avoids politics, it is a tool being used for malice and hardm. Boycotting and "Online Shaming" dont have a direct intention to cause you a form of pain/suffering/hurt/unwanted feelings. They're more of a financial takedown as opposed to an angry mob of death threats and 24/7 harassment. This article needs to be outlined carefully as it will help validate some victims of this indiscriminate online mob mentality. Its really hard to write it without tone issues, as the entire tone of the subject is grim at best, loss of life at worse. I feel like once we come to a definitive answer to these questions, it will need to be protected. Its election year, everything will be weaponized. unfortunately, at the cost of reader knowledge. Tyenglish (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Charlotte Proudman" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Charlotte Proudman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Charlotte Proudman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Justine Sacco" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Justine Sacco. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31#Justine Sacco until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Final goal of canceling", etc.

Regarding these recent additions, apologies that I removed them as a WP:BLOCKEVADE the first time (they were re-added by the block-evading user, and I didn't realize it was a re-addition.) That said, it's utterly unusable. The citations are all to axe-grindy culture-war opinion pieces by people with no particular expertise, yet here the opinions and chest-beating culture-war battlecries of those sorts of opinion-pieces represent are presented as fact, which is entirely inappropriate. Beyond that they don't even reflect the (angry, baseless, and utterly useless) opinion-pieces cited; the wording here was far more strident and aggressive than the citations. The things about "pain and hurt" or "attacking all property" seem to just be the random personal opinions of an editor rather than something cited even in those unusable sources. Obviously it has WP:TONE issues, but it also has sourcing issues and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"The citations are all to axe-grindy culture-war opinion pieces by people with no particular expertise." Of course, This is quite literally grinding an ax for someone. " The things about "pain and hurt" or "attacking all property" seem to just be the random personal opinions ", but they aren't, and was supplied with citations. I feel as if there is a political bias as this is about as straightforward as you can when it comes to "Canceling". You cannot pad up and make a mob who decides to be Judge, Jury, and executioner sound fun. If you were to put this topic in your own words, what would it be? Or do you have comment? The way this page is watched tells me there is an underlying motive with this. Gatekeeping because you dont like the definition is not something you need to be associating yourself with. Tyenglish (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Strange choice of picture on this one

The current picture illustrating this article is File:Walter Palmer's clinic.jpg, which depicts protest signs attached to the door of a dentist who provoked anger by killing a lion. Whatever's going on there, it's certainly not 'online shaming', since the signs aren't virtual. That's good old-fashioned 'real-world shaming'. Robofish (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Robofish indeed, it does seem an odd choice. Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree and I will remove the image per this Talk page section. I get the attempt when it was added in 2015 to make it relevant with the 'negative online reviews' caption, but the image itself never made sense in this article. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted removal of examples

I have reverted Bacondrum's wholesale removal of all the examples, as I don't think 60k+ bytes of content should be unilaterally removed without proper discussion. I think it is appropriate to include some examples, especially the ones which have been extensively reported in mainstream media, and prune away the more poorly sourced ones. Let's discuss. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree overall, but I want to emphasize that I think that some of the more poorly sourced ones, that got relatively little coverage, should be cut, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Readers are more likely to benefit from a few well-chosen examples than overly many. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Which ones are you thinking of keeping or removing? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The cancel culture article also got blessed with Bacondrum's wholesale removal[3]. Perhaps the valuable parts can be gleaned from that version. Harmswhims (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking that whole merge might not have been the best idea. Noam Chomsky was "cancelled" a lot in the 1960s and 1970s for his anti-war activism, and he certainly wasn't shamed online for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, I'm not sure. I haven't looked at them thoroughly yet. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to can remove ones that seem undue, then anyone else can follow WP:BRD if they disagree. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Expansion and possible eventual split of cancel culture material

An editor who has been fighting above and in the article itself to remove almost all material about cancel culture has been partially blocked from this article and talk page for 3 months per this ANI report. His overly high standard of sourcing is not correct. I brought back some of the material he removed, but a lot of potential for expansion remains. There are many media sources about cancel culture - here are just a few I've come across: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] And here are some mentioned above by Adpete: [11][12][13] Sources have also commented that it's not just celebrities and not just for stuff that almost anyone would agree is offensive. I think if the article expands more, cancel culture could in fact be a separate article. It is, after all, not just online anymore - it has real-world consequences. Are any sources actually calling it mere "online shaming"? If not, then having it under that title would be WP:Original research and WP:POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it definitely should be a separate article; they are quite different things (as I said above "Cancelling" is not solely "online" and not always about "shaming"). As for content, there used to be a decent length article on Cancel culture [14], as well as a shorter one on Call-out culture [15], before both got turned into redirects to here. Perhaps a lot of that material really was unencyclopedic, but there seems to be some reasonable stuff there. The big question is what to name the new article. My feeling is that including the word "culture" is rather pejorative, and the article should be called something like "Cancel (boycott)". Adpete (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think any split should be under "Cancel culture", since that is the term sources are using. It's not always a boycott, either - sometimes it's someone just getting fired, e.g. [16] But thinking about it, what I think we should do is not split it right now, but let it grow here for 3 months, and at the end of that time, maybe split then, and do an RfC if there's local opposition. With the content from the old versions of articles, feel free to try bringing back whatever is well-sourced and on-topic. DIYeditor commented above on one of those merges; maybe he has some ideas on what to add or bring back. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we simply add content to the section until it becomes too much (which it soon will be, I am reasonably convinced), and then (re)create a detailed article. I do however believe that including the concept under the umbrella of "online shaming" makes sense. Regarding the name of a (possible) standalone article, I concur with "Cancel culture", because that is the expression used most often, "Cancellation" being more general but much less used. Fa suisse (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm giving you a ping here because of your comment at ANI. Just wanted to say that you're welcome by me to bring back any content you think should be brought back. It sounded like you had a degree of familiarity with the article's past versions. More generally, there could also be salvageable material in the history of cancel culture and call-out culture. I'm sure much of what was dumped was indeed undue or badly sourced, but it's worth more editors reviewing it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Turns out that the same editor has deleted the majority of the original Cancel culture article, with no apparent consensus to boot. This older revision [17] demonstrates how much they have removed. Perhaps when this split happens, editors may want to restore the valuable parts from that revision. Harmswhims (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The original article was used to promote a conservative discourse of general cancel culture and populated with many inappropriate examples. I remember at least of one now-banned editor who was aiming it in that direction, it's possible that this prompted reactionary edits. If I remember, I was one of the editors who supported the merge into this article. —PaleoNeonate – 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I initiated the discussion but didn't vote at the time. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Call-outs and cancellation : Neutrality disputed

As I've remarked a few days ago at the Talk page of the Cancel culture article (which now redirects to this section again), there is a POV issue with this section. Opposition to the use of the term and validity of the concept of "cancel culture" is not addressed. I recall the term being criticized as a catch-all, used selectively, etc. Not much time to work on this now but I'm sure some of the references cover that. See for instance . Fa suisse (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

It is true that the current section no longer has any relevant information. Here are some related sources:

• https://jezebel.com/well-it-sure-was-a-big-year-for-the-call-out-culture-wi-1840240922
• https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xb9x5/logan-paul-and-the-myth-of-cancel-culture
• https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/the-misplaced-hysteria-about-a-cancel-culture-that-do-1829563238
• https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/cancel-culture-when-celebrity-worship-goes-wrong/

—PaleoNeonate – 03:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note the Jezebel is not considered RS. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated. Harmswhims (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump's quote

Should Trump's quote in the call-out section be kept or removed? As a new Wikipedian, I'm trying to understand the process here. Because over at Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#Now_mentioned_at_Left-wing_fascism, some editors made reasonable arguments to disallow Trump's opinions. Harmswhims (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think his character is relevant, its the fact that he is President and gave a speech about the subject that is significant. LastDodo (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Tim Hunt controversy POV

The "Tim Hunt controversy" section reads as quite biased.

• It says 'the tweet', a transcript of Hunt's remarks by Connie St Louis, 'cast the remarks in starkly sexist terms', implying Hunt's remarks were not sexist but were framed as such by St Louis.

• It says Vagenda magazine encouraged female scientists to post pictures of themselves at work 'To ridicule the "sexist scientist".' In fact all Vagenda's tweet said was 'Call for all female scientists to upload pictures of themselves at work with the hashtag #distractinglysexy.' There was no suggestion of an intent to 'ridicule' Hunt.

• It further complains that the editors of Nature took Hunt's comments 'as a seriously intended suggestion "that single-sex labs might be preferable",' and that in her transcript Connie St Louis 'gave no indication that he had been joking.' This implies that the only reason Hunt's comments were regarded as offensive by some was because they didn't realise he was joking, when in fact they were offended precisely because he was joking about something quite serious. In the words of Hunt's own apology, 'My comments have brought to the surface the anger and frustration of a great many women in science whose careers have been blighted by chauvinism and discrimination.'

I'm not defending the hate campaign, or even the ferocity of the response, but a summary that feels less like it's dismissing the speech itself as a misunderstood joke would be good. Sadiemonster (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Added new subsection titled, "Social Status Shaming"

Hi everyone. I am a student in my communication course and was tasked to add a new section wtihin an existing article on Wikipedia. I have added a new sub-section titled, "Social Status Shaming," and I was wondering if someone could take a look at it and provide me with some feedback. I did my research and analyzed my refences so hopefully everything is good on that end. I am more worried about the utility of the new section, any grammar mistakes, and if I need to edit or remove anything. I have provided the link to my sandbox as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sal.hammad21/Cancel_culture

Thanks --Sal.hammad21 (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit for section: American Public Opinion

.Hi everyone. I had a few edits I wanted to run by for the section of the article titled, "American Public Opinion." First and foremost, there were a few instances of missing citations and references. Most notably this part of the section:

"A poll of American registered voters conducted in July 2020 shows that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive", was common. 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, 8% having engaged in this often."

This section above is missing multiple citations and has a few running sentences. The sentences after this part have citations to refer back to and double check the numbers and percentages that have been thrown around. I did a small edit of what I think the beginning section should look like. Please let me know your thoughts!

My edit:

"A poll of American registered voters conducted in July 2020 shows that cancel culture, was common. Cancel Culture is defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive" (Need Citation). Accoding to a study done by "______" 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Accordingly, 8% having engaged in this often. In the study, it was noted that behavior differed according to age. 55% of voters who were aged 18 to 34 years old, stated that they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined the social media pile-on "

Thanks, --Sal.hammad21 (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stipirneni1. Peer reviewers: Stipirneni1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)