Talk:Woke

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)

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: . 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: . 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: . After seeing that, I shortened it further, back to what it had been: . 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: , 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)

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)

Is also used for liberal zionism. The cancel culture of the Right when people are critical of Israel and end up cancelled. That is also called Woke right. Inayity (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Mind virus woke 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 December 10 § Mind virus woke until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)