Talk:Woke

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

Suggested Insertion (for United States section on Woke page) The variation “wokeism” is also used—particularly in critique of American higher education—where it has been defined academically as a structurally recursive belief enforcement system that replaces epistemic inquiry with the preservation of coerced moral authority.

Source: Camlin, J. (2025). “The Scholarly Definition of Wokeism: Why American Universities Enforce Belief Without Clarifying the Doctrine.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15400150 Cognita-Camlin (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

The cited source is a preprint, which basically makes it just some guy's opinion. The addition seems WP:UNDUE for this reason. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also suggest that @Cognita-Camlin review WP:SELFCITE. It's not against Wikipedia policy to insert your own writing into an article when doing so is otherwise appropriate but one should expect that if they are saying something controversial WP:DUE is likely to apply and people are strongly encouraged, in these cases, to defer to community opinion. In other words, should this pass through peer review, please remember this will very much be a "proceed with caution" situation. (As a personal note, I'm a professional author and have been publishing in RSes for years. I've self-cited precisely once in all my years editing Wikipedia, in a topic with minimal other RSes, that was non-controversial, and very carefully labeled the edit as such.) Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

And frankly I'm a bit suspicious of a paper that is citing Alasdair MacIntyre in 1981 for a definition of "wokism" - a phrase that would not enter the popular lexicon for roughly another 40 years so this paper doesn't seem like it's non-controversial. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, who is Cognita Prime? Was an LLM used to draft this essay? It cites Aquinas? The more I read the longer the list of questions grows about this as even a potential future source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked it up - it is a chatbot. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If you read it, do you have any reasonable agreement or disagreement with the content of the paper as a source for the one sentence I added? Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely defines source reliability based on how the source in question was published, and the reputations of the author and publisher. Whether people personally agree or disagree with its content is supposed to be irrelevant here. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with citing Aquinas? BeatrixGodard (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy that things can't exist before there are names for them, or will have different names later? BeatrixGodard (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I get asked by alot of people outside the US what wokeism means / is. That's why its a one sentence blurb in a giant article under the US to help those outside the US figure it out from a NPOV. Definitely not anything close to undue emphasis. Not only that, you don't even cite any content issue. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I did read it. But my opinion as a critic or a philosopher is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is a pre-print of which considerable copy was inserted as the direct output of a chatbot. I was, with my human eyes and mind, able to spot it right away and then I subsequently verified this against several chatbot checkers. Neither preprints nor chatbot generated texts are allowable by Wikipedia. And so this source is not allowable by Wikipedia regardless of my opinion of it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

really, a direct 1-shot output of a chatbot? Where is your proof beyond "just knowing?" ScholarLoop (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Note: Cognita-Camlin has changed their username to ScholarLoop. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The abstract is human. GPTZero says the first section is 100% AI generated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

ok a different source then? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

And there is an AI ethics disclaimer I see, so is your legal claim that scholarly paper was 100% generated and completely fabricated? ScholarLoop (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be careful with phrases like "legal claim" as it's tiptoeing up to WP:NLT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm highly confused. Did you have an AI generate the paper that you cited or not? BeatrixGodard (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

We cannot use preprints (like basically everything on zenodo) as sources, as they are considered self published, see WP:RS. That one of the credited authors is a chatbot is a separate issue that would also disqualify use of this as a source. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Has this even been submitted to a peer-review journal? If not, it's equivalent to a blog entry. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

ok a different source then? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a different source would be required. And for such a strong claim probably enough sources to demonstrate some level of academic consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

here's a few. I recommend the 1st. or all 3.

The variation “wokeism” is also used particularly in critique of American higher education where it has been defined academically as a structurally recursive belief enforcement system that replaces epistemic inquiry with the preservation of coerced moral authority.

Rzepka, A., Fazlagić, J., Ahamed, I. (2023). Measuring woke culture in universities: a diagnostic approach. Journal of Modern Science, 54(5), 488-509. https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/176387

Defines Wokeism in Universities similarly – does not explain the engine of wokeism in universities as the original citation but has a qualitative measurement matrix for recursive belief enforcement system to measure it.

The rest are mainly report on the effect’s of wokeism in universities confirming the definition and final statement of the original citation. While opinion they are on topic and are reliable sources.

Jeffrey M. McCall. (2024, May 16). Higher education activism consequences. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4864353-higher-education-activism-consequences/

Kalet, H. (2024, May 15). Pro-Palestinian protests aren't the real threat to our campuses. The Forward. Retrieved from https://forward.com/opinion/605875/campus-protests-antisemitism-student-fears/ ScholarLoop (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of the Journal of Modern Science, but the title is suspiciously generic. Is this is genuine peer-reviewed journal or just another example of predatory publishing?

As for the others, opinion essays are not reliable sources for anything except the author's opinions themselves. Please refer to WP:RSEDITORIAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

yep peer reviewed. https://www.jomswsge.com/Peer-Review-Process,5435.html ScholarLoop (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can put whatever they want on their own website. Is there independent confirmation of the source's quality? A journal ranking, perhaps? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They claim an ICV-2022 value of 100 but I can't find the journal on the ICV master list. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/details?id=22856, under archival ratings their actual methodology is listed as 100 for 2022. They were not included in the 2023 master list. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparently Index Copernicus had a little controversy specific to Poland (where this journal is published) though:At the time of partnership between Index Copernicus and the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the project of evaluating Polish universities, Index Copernicus was offering a paid option to speed up the process of indexing journals so the IC ranking displayed prominently by the journal isn't really an indicator either direction. Simonm223 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

After doing more digging the journal seems like a low-impact but legitimate minor journal. It's not on any predatory journal lists anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not going to fold this as involved. But it isn't going anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't had a chance to review the journal article yet but the assertion that the Forward article, which is about the suppression of pro-Palestinian student activists, is related at all to the "Wokism" neologism is not born out in the text. Using the Forward article in this context would be clear WP:SYNTH regardless of whether its opinions were otherwise due. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Pejorative usage

Thread retitled from Completely Inappropriate Article.

From a UK perspective, at any rate, this article is just plain wrong. I write as, basically, a Liberal. 'Woke', in the UK, may have been used by the Guardian for a short while in the context of 'awake to social issues' - but for the past decade, it is used 99% pejoratively. Being Woke is bad over here! If it is still broadly used in the USA in the 'awake' context, then the article should, in the first paragraph, make clear that this is a USA article. Britannica is better and has "In the 2010s the word woke euphemistically came into use to describe an idea that was considered politically progressive; as the political environment in the United States became increasingly polarized, the word was repurposed as a pejorative synonym for liberal or left-leaning." 2A0A:EF40:EB9:2201:4A0:724D:BBD2:FAA0 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of their viewpoints. Britannica is merely one source out of many. See also WP:RECENTISM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

"Britannica is merely one source out of many." Britannica can not be used a source, it has no expertise on the subject matter. It is a mismash of poorly-researched articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

"Woke" is used pejoratively in the US among right-wingers, too. I'm skeptical that the use of "woke" as a pejorative comes from a difference in definitions rather than merely a difference in values. The term refers to a culturally left movement, so it's not weird that people who oppose what it represents would refer to it with disdain. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the page is inappropriate, but I do feel that the lead has under-emphasized the extent to which the term has come to be used as a pejorative. I had made this edit: [1], but another editor objected, noting that there was redundancy and that the sentence had been framed as only being about 2019: [2]. I can appreciate that, but I also think that the lead needs to reflect the main text, by (1) not making it sound like this is just a niche thing on the right, as noted in comments above, and (2) not making it sound like this is something that peaked in 2019. Like it or not, "woke" has very much become a term of derision. So I made this edit: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Woke right

Am I the only one confused by these latest edits? The user literally added several paragraphs and lines to various places of the page that use the term "woke right", which appeared in yesterday's New York Times article, approximately 14 times? The new text may appear to have many quotes and sources, but in fact they all point to the same New York Times article. Isn't this focusing too much on a single term? Besides the fact that this clearly violates WP:UNDUE, there's also a potential conflict of interest, given that the same user previously added a large section of similar content to an article on Cancel culture (including referencing the same article in NYT), apparently attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance new political narratives. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Using a source on another page does not constitute a conflict of interest. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS and do not accuse me of advocacy without evidence. I agree that more than one source should be used, and I added some additional sources. BootsED (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem if you'd simply writing about this material once with appropriate attribution. But not only did you include it in three or four different places in the article, but you also used the new term promoted by this material about 14 times. Even if you may not have had any bad intentions, this is still excessive and really does seem like an attempt to promote a specific term through the article. Moreover, despite the term "woke" now being generally considered a "favorite label" of the right, after your edits, more than half of the section on the term's derogatory use since 2019 is devoted to criticizing the right with the term "woke right". Are you seriously saying, based on two pieces of material, that in our time this term is broader and more significant than the general right-wing use of the word "woke" in general? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It's more than two pieces of material. If you think some of the quotations are excessive we can consolidate some of them. The exact sentence is "By 2025, increasing political commentary debated the emergence of a "woke right". I quoted notable thinkers extensively to showcase this commentary. BootsED (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and condensed one quotation and removed the one by Steve Bannon. BootsED (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have created a separate section for this term and discussed it there, including these "significant thinkers"? This term appeared several months ago in a specific context, but after your edits, it looks like it's not only an insignificant part of the woke discourse, but even a more prominent part of it than the original use of the word. This truly resembles attempts to use Wikipedia to "counter-promote" political terminology. Create a separate section for this, reduce the clearly inflated mention of the term in the history section, and the problem will be solved. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it appears now. It's a single paragraph buried in the 2019 section, and I don't think it now appears "more prominent part of it than the original use of the word". It's simply describing developments from 2025 onward in a single paragraph. There are dozens of paragraphs about the terms usage from beforehand so I don't think the coverage is out of proportion. Also, stop accusing me of using Wikipedia to "counter-promote" political terminology. I think this is the third time you have cast aspersions about my integrity. BootsED (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This development shouldn't steal all the attention, creating the impression that the term has completely changed its meaning and context in recent years, which is far from the truth. Plus, by shortening the paragraph, you somehow removed the very text that at least somewhat mitigated its neutrality and attempted to "justify" why the right-wingers began using similar tactics. Listen, why can't you just create a separate section? You keep complaining that I question your intentions, but at the same time you keep giving me reason to doubt them by advocating a misleading overemphasis on a term that is in fact a new political label. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the section it is in is fine as it discusses the development of the term and its usage over time. I agree that there were excessive quotations, and I went ahead and combined some more sentences. Let me know if you think it works now. BootsED (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is still far from ideal, and I still think a separate section on this would be much better than spreading it throughout the article. But to avoid spending the entire night on it, I'm willing to accept this as a compromise with some of my wording edits. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

As long as it's reliably sourced, which it is, I don't think this is using Wikipedia to do anything. I do think the new section header gets a little wordy, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This was necessary because the section's focus changed significantly after the addition of the new text. But returning to the topic, the problem lies not so much in the sources themselves as in the way they are presented and attributed. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I shortened the section header slightly, I think this should satisfy everyone. BootsED (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the style, but English isn't my native language, so I'll keep quiet. Thanks for shortening the title. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

How to word the section header

The following is copied from my user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Good evening. I tried to compromise, but everything has its limits. Your attempts to revert the section title back to your version are already on the verge of a low-intensity edit war, and I warn you that next time I'll be forced to report this. Please respect other users' attempts to create a compromise version of the section, rather than trying to force your preferred version at any cost. It's just a short section title, I don't think it's worth such a drawn-out debates. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that English is not your first language, so I'm going to cut you some slack and not get angry over this "warning" you have posted here.

At Woke, the longstanding section header had been "2019–present: as a pejorative". Here's a permalink to the page just prior to the very first time I edited it: [4]. That was the section header already, before I had ever touched the page. So it's not "my version".

The change came when you made this edit: [5]. You lengthened it to "2019–present: further popularization of the term as pejorative and discussion of woke right". I didn't object, but another editor did see it, as I did, as something that needed to be shortened: [6]. After seeing that, I shortened it further, back to what it had been: [7]. Hardly me edit warring. And my edit summary makes clear why I did it: "simplify header further (even "woke right" is a pejorative, too)". The whole section is about pejorative use, so "woke right" is just one form of pejorative use among others, and as something that has only gained prominence in the last approximately seven days, I think it's far from clear that it's important enough to put in the header of a section that deals with multiple things. Your response was to do this: [8], with the only justification being "so as not to return to the status quo", which is not the same thing as making it better. I subsequently made the edit you object to, above. My edit summary was: "I think "further development of use" is so vague as to be meaningless. All "further developments" have been pejorative." I mean it, that "further development of use" is so vague as to be meaningless. It adds nothing useful to the header.

You have then made a series of three edits which, together, lengthen it to "the beginning and development of pejorative use". I think that's bad writing, because all it adds is that the pejorative use had a beginning and then further things happened, which is self-evident and just empty verbiage. But, since I have made two edits changing it back, I won't make any more unless a consensus emerges that it should be changed back.

I see no reason to continue discussing this here, so I'm now going to copy this discussion over to the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

End of copied material.

So, as I said, I think it may be worth seeing what other editors think about the section header. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you really not think that such a protracted dispute over such a small and insignificant thing has gone too far? Your comment, with which you're trying to justify continuing this, is somewhere between 10 and 20 times longer than the text we're arguing about. This is really starting to get unnecessarily stubborn. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

tl;dr: I think "2019–present: the beginning and development of pejorative use" is needlessly verbose. I've been giving it thought, and I'd like to know what other editors think of changing it to: "2019–present: emergence of pejorative use". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Putting it another way, would anyone object to my changing it to "2019–present: emergence of pejorative use"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're offering this as a compromise, then so be it. This dispute has already gone on longer than it should. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo ante heading "2019–present: as a pejorative". I agree that the more elaborate versions are self-evident and needlessly verbose. If there was an emergence and development of pejorative usage, readers would logically expect to find them in the section labeled with the word "pejorative". There's no need to spell out everything in the section heading, and the additional verbosity smacks of original research.

Also, before we start accusing one another of being stubborn and trying to force [their] preferred version, please remember that the burden to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include disputed content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point that I used these words precisely because the second user repeatedly reverted to the old version, ignoring attempts or even direct calls to reach consensus. Of course, each of us can have our own views on things, but the approach of a user imposing their version and then demanding consensus is the furthest thing from constructive. In this case, consensus has already been reached, and you're just relaunching it, so I've reverted to the current consensus version and would first ask you to provide your arguments for why this should be changed. You can't just cancel a consensus option because you don't agree with it. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As an WP:INVOLVED editor, you don't get to determine consensus here. I've raised several objections to the added material. Unless someone can convincingly refute those objections, I'll revert to the status quo ante per WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You literally replied to a thread where there was a dispute between two users, which was resolved after I agreed to the other user's compromise. That's a consensus formed through discussion. And a week ago, actually. With that logic, you can deny any consensus by simply saying, "You were involved in the dispute, so you can't define consensus." Please, to avoid creating a new dispute out of thin air, try to resolve this issue within the framework of the discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I am doing so. WP:CONTENTAGE does not matter, and a week is barely any time at all. Consensus can change. If no one responds in the next couple of days to my specific objections regarding the content, I'll restore the status quo ante heading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You're citing the rules while ignoring the situation itself. The article reached consensus after a simmering debate that could have escalated into a full-blown edit war. This was ultimately prevented thanks to a compromise proposal from a user opposing me. This is the status quo, so please, don't threaten me or impose conditions. You're trying to single-handedly overturn the consensus in this article, and if you refuse to discuss this, I'll be forced to contact the administrators to avoid starting a new conflict. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not refusing to discuss anything; on the contrary, I have already stated several objections to the material itself. Do you have a response? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I already discussed all of this above with another user and reached a consensus after we explored several other options. You simply tried to cancel it all out in one go because you had a different opinion (also ignoring the very reason for this dispute to arise in the first place). Which I don't consider constructive for the reasons already described. But since you deny my very possibility of talking about consensus, I've created a separate thread in the Politics project discussion. Let other interested users evaluate the situation and the past discussion to avoid a repeat of this protracted one-on-one debate. If they agree with you or create a new consensus, I won't oppose it. I've had enough of these casuistic disputes over principle. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You did not respond to my objection on the grounds of original research. Do we know that 2019 until now was when pejorative usage emerged? That implies that no one in history ever used the term as a pejorative before 2019.

The Vox article "A history of 'wokeness'" actually says the connotation of 'woke' as a phony show of progressive activism had taken hold by 2018, not 2019.

Additionally, the phrase "2019–present: emergence of pejorative use" makes no sense. Did pejorative usage take multiple years to emerge? When someone looks at this article in five years, will they think the emergence is still going on in 2030? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless you assume that there will be no changes in the development of the word over these 5 years and the section will be frozen in this form until the year you mentioned. Which is objectively not going to happen. Even if a new section doesn't appear, someone will still expand the existing one. Including possible renaming of the section to reflect new sources or section content. You're asking me to justify things that were in the article before I appeared, things that not only weren't directly related to our dispute but actually coexisted with it. That means you'll literally have to rewrite the entire section, because it only describes the emergence of negative connotations in the late 2010s. Whether it was in 2019 or 2018, an obvious minor detail, there is nothing stopping you from adjusting the indicated year yourself. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The point is that we don't know the "emergence" started in 2018 any more than 2019. Only that a pejorative usage had taken hold by 2018 according to the source, meaning it could have appeared earlier. Therefore putting a definite date in the heading is misleading original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Whether it could or could not be considered original research no less, until you provide a credible source for it. We only write about what is described in them, not what might have been based on our assumptions about anything. I can be a stubborn for rules too. Again, if you disagree with how this is described in the article, please rewrite the section. Feel free to edit. I already replied about creating the topic above, let the title's fate be decided by the discussion on the Politics project. I don't want to waste hours on massive, casuistic disputes over two or three words; the last few days have already exhausted me enough. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

We only write about what is described in them, not what might have been based on our assumptions is exactly why putting any date in the heading is inappropriate. Which sources specifically describe an emergence of pejorative usage beginning in 2018/2019? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

In fact, all the dates appearing in subheadings under § Origins and usage are misleading; did no one use #Staywoke after 2014? Did nobody think of using "woke" in connection with Black Lives Matter before 2014? Did "broadening usage" only begin in 2015? It's more likely that some or all of these things were happening together at different times.

Additionally, the dates make the article look more like a timeline or list of statistics rather than an article about a defined concept. We should instead label subsections with general themes and trends related to the topic. If people want to know dates of specific events, they can just read the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is long overdue for a thorough review and rewrite, as it's more focused on promoting certain narratives than on providing a neutral description of the topic. Just recall the recent episode of the promotion of the new term "woke right" based on several sources actively trying to popularize it. But whatever you considered doing this with the article, do it without me. It's already enough for me that even simple section rename turning into protracted, casuistic discussions and edit wars. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, either with or without "emergence", as long as we don't go back to any of the more verbose iterations. (And that nonsense about me "ignoring" stuff is just a WP:NPA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Both of these options are yours, so it was already clear from the start that you wouldn't have any problems with this. But getting back to the "nonsense," you effectively waged a low-intensity edit war on the article, repeatedly reverting it to your version despite my attempts to suggest various alternatives. You only really moved to a discussion when I wrote you a warning that the dispute was bordering on a full-blown edit war. And if you're talking about WP:NPA, calling other people's words "nonsense" can be put under that as well. In fact, as I said, attempts by a user to unilaterally cancel the results of a previous discussion simply restart the conflict from the very beginning. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: the specific years in the headings were added without explanation in July 2023. Section headings previously referenced more general time periods like 2000s and early 2010s. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is a minor detail. If you consider it so important, you can replace it with a more general time period using 10s and 20s instead of individual years again. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I aver that Sangdeboeuf is correct that specific years in the headings are a goofy innovation, and moreover I would say that having any description after them seems a little unnecessary (as has been argued here). Solaire's section heading is bizarrely long, and imo, not an improvement. jp×g🗯️ 10:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What you call my section is another user's compromise, which I agreed to in order to resolve a previous dispute. It was the user's attempts to simply cancel it in one bold, one-sided move that were the problem. Not the dates, which I have no problem deleting. Although I do find the statement that a 3-4 word headline is "bizarrely long" very strange. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Nevertheless I hope you will drop your opposition as you said you would once other users agreed that the so-called compromise is in fact not an improvement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that one user supporting you can be called a new consensus and support of other users. Especially when the user seemed to mean something completely different. And I would also ask you to avoid emotionally charged constructions like "your so-called", thank you. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, JPxG was referring to the much-longer versions, not the one with "emergence" only. Anyway, at this point, I think we are in a WP:1AM situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"One against many" is hardly a situation where, in a dispute between two people, one side manages to get one more person on their side and a de facto "I don't care" from another user who had previously participated in the dispute. There's no need to rush, it's not a matter of life and death, nothing will happen if we wait for the opinion of 2-3 more people, and don't try to close everything after the first person from the outside appears. As for the old options, in that case, it was a very strange statement, since I accepted the compromise without any problem and didn't raise those options again. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Closing the topic

I'm increasingly frustrated by the state of this discussion, where an obviously unimportant dispute is becoming increasingly personal and stubborn, to the point where people who previously rejected consensus of two users now insist they received community support and a new consensus simply because one other user agreed with them, while one of the thread long-standing participants simply wrote, "I don't care." But for the same reason, I'm not going to turn something that would never be a serious "fight" into a matter of life and death. Therefore, despite my obvious shock at the whole situation, to be consistent and preserve my mental health, I'm closing this thread prematurely from my side and heading to the wiki vacation. Do what you think is best. I'll check out other users' opinions if needed, but I'm no longer going to participate in this dispute. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wokerati" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wokerati has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 11 § Wokerati until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)