Talk:Identity politics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hopkins

@Spoonydude84 and Grayfell: I also like the Hopkins quote. Can we include some portion of it? Some other sections also have quotes. -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but since this isn't a vote, why would liking it matter? This quote seems completely arbitrary and disproportionate based on coverage.

So why is CJ Hopkins' opinion encyclopedically significant, and why is this article the place for his opinion? Why would this quote be highlighted out of all he has written? How is this different from cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective?

Nothing about the CJ Hopkins article (which has its own problems) suggests any special expertise in this topic, and doesn't describe him as a journalist at all. So we have to compare this to similar content by other playwrights/satirists/etc. There have been thousands and thousands of columns, and blogs, and op-eds, and similar mocking some idiosyncratic definition of "identity politics". Many of these have been written by ostensibly noteworthy people. This isn't Wikiquote, and we neither can nor should attempt to include all relevant quotes, so this one seems basically useless. If there is some reliable source commenting on why Hopkins take is significant, let's see it.

As for other quotes, that's a good point. Some are framed as historically relevant, or cite secondary sources which emphasize these quotes. The Owen Jones quote is from a book specifically about an aspect of identity politics which had editorial oversight and received some positive critical attention, indicating that it's at least arguable a WP:RS. The same cannot be said of the Hopkins quote.

I would also argue that the Brendan O'Neill should also be removed. While the source is slightly more clearly notable, it's not obvious why this opinion warrants special attention. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hopkins is a satirist writing in a website known for conspiracy stuff and Russian propaganda. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I like the quote and think it should stay on the Identity politics page. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Considering CJ Hopkins has his very own Wikipedi page, I think that makes him notabale. Is there any exact evidence that he's writing for Russian propaganda? In the modern age I've seen alot of smearing of people without proving exact evidence that they are "russian propagandist." I aslo see nothing related to Russia at all in this particular quote. Also, CJ Hopkins articles appear on many websites, as his Wikipedia article states. I've found 4 different websites that this particular quote has come from.Spoonydude84 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter that you personally like it. This isn't a popularity contest.

It doesn't appear that any of those outlets are reliable. The first two I found were Unz Review and Zero Hedge, both of which have histories of publishing WP:FRINGE material, including extremist conspiracy theories. This is another indicator that this is just another random, barely notable person's irrelevant personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've found it on Offguardian, Dissent voice, Greanville post, Radio free and Consent Factory. Just because his articles appear on certain websites doesn't mean he fully endorses all the viewpoints of said website. And at the end of the quote, obviously his name shows up. It will be up to Wikipedia users wether to trust CJ Hopkins or not. Spoonydude84 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you likely found them because Offguardian, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, Radiofree.org are all listed on his website. None of this are significant. Consent Factory is another of Hopkins' own websites, because this was basically a blog-post. He wrote a blog post a year ago, and, as far as I can see, almost nobody else seems to have commented on it at all, other then random IPs who keep adding it to this Wikipedia page. That's not a sign that this is a major perspective which needs to be crammed into the article.

So again, why would this obscure quote, from this obscure playwright, belong in this article? Hundreds, if not thousands, of equally notable people have written about identity politics. Why this one and not any of those, and where do we draw the line? Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

His works have been reviewed by publications such as "The Guardian", "Metro" "The Herald", and others https://cjhopkins.com/stage-plays/horse-country/ with good reviews. Do you consider that to still be obscure? The "Critiques of identity politics" section has no current quotes. Spoonydude84 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Good for him, I guess. That is completely irrelevant, and that doesn't answer my question. There are full-length academic books about comedy or satire and identity politics (ISBN 978-3-319-90506-8, as an arbitrary example). There are many, many people who have written about this topic and who are notable for a variety of reasons. Many of them are undeniably more notable than Hopkins, and many of them are notable as experts on politics or social sciences. Why is this one arbitrarily selected quote, from an obscure playwright, so special it belongs and not any of those other quotes? Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Hopkins doesn't need to be world-famous, he's just a satirist whose views on this topic are published in places like Counterpunch[1], The American Conservative[2], and Zero Hedge[3]: all popular and notable platforms that are somewhere in the orbit of the American right. Hopkins's criticisms are published by notable sources, showing they're notable themselves.

Despite this Grayfell, in your reply to my request that we include some portion of the quote, you wrote that this would be completely arbitrary and disproportionate. It is surely not completely arbitrary, if the word "completely" has any meaning: Hopkins' commentary has been published elsewhere, and is very relevant to the "criticism" section of this page. It is unclear what you mean by "disproportionate," since I effectively asked you how much quote would be reasonable, in your view. Or are you saying that one sentence from Hopkins would be disproportionate? If so, what are the voices critical of identity politics that deserve a greater proportion in that section?

You've also written that quoting Hopkins would be cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective. If you can demonstrate that a more complete quote from Hopkins shows us that the proposed text significantly distorts the full meaning of his words, that would reveal cherry-picking. However, removing Hopkins' criticism from a "criticism" section of this page would appear to cherry-pick notable ideas out of the article. Like you I also support adding more academic sources to this article, but I don't think that removing Hopkins will help you with that work which needs to be done.

I do think some part of the quote should be included, based on the sources linked above. The whole thing is too long for this article. And Spoonydude84 if you happen to be adding the quote back in as an IP, that is very frowned upon here for multiple reasons: WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. I don't know if you're doing that, but don't. -Darouet (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have also raised related WP:SPA and WP:COI concerns at Talk:CJ Hopkins, which has overlapping editing patterns. The travelling IP addresses may or may not be related, but I think it is at least plausible they are Hopkins himself, based on this history. I don't know (or really care) whether or not Hopkins meets WP:NBIO, but we should be basing our assumptions about this person's importance on reliable, independent sources, same as always.

Nobody is denying that Hopkins exists, or that he has a Wikipedia article, or that he has expressed opinions about identity politics. This can be said about thousands of people. If the purpose of this quote was to indicate a notable criticism of the concept, this is a completely arbitrary way to do that, because there are thousands of possible sources for this topic. Yet again, why is this quote significant?

As for cherry-picking, the quote was chopped-up. It is not a contiguous quote, but samples from multiple disconnected paragraphs devoid of context. This is a very clear form of editorializing which violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV. The essay was long (by Hopkins own admission) and choosing any one "quote" (or collection of different quotes, in this case) based only on the essay itself is subjective. If you think it's a fair summary of his point, so be it, but that's based only on your own opinion. If someone else comes along and said "this only makes sense if we include this part of the paragraph in the middle" there's no basis for disputing that, is there? Or someone like me can come along and say "this seems pointlessly sarcastic and self-indulgent, and doesn't belong at all" and there's no basis for disputing that, either. Why these quotes, and not some other selection?

These other outlets for the same source are mostly opinion outlets with limited editorial oversight. Hopkins' columns are sometimes re-published in some fringe outlets without modification. This is not a sign that this perspective is significant. An IP address chose the quote and added it because they liked it, but that's not a good enough reason for a neutral encyclopedia. If there is some reason to think this perspective is important, a better source can surely be found. Then, it would be much better to summarize in our own words, per MOS:QUOTE. If the quote is the best example of this perspective, a secondary source should be found which describes Hopkins take as useful, or significant, or even comments on it to say how wrong it is. Otherwise, who cares, and why should readers care? Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell on the one hand, I think you're engaging in some all-or-nothing thinking. We've already shown above that the Hopkins' views on IP have some online media presence, and for this reason could be given space in this article. On the other hand, given your concerns that Hopkins' views are being misrepresented, and your strenuous objection to use of Hokpins when there is no overwhelming need to do so, I'll defer for now. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the opposition to the inclusion in the article of a perspective that is dismissive of the idea of "identity". Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point, and presenting it that way is loaded and leading. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't this particular commentary about "identity politics" be welcome? You say "why is this article the place for his opinion?" It is appropriate for inclusion because it is squarely on the topic of this article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've already explained all of this multiple times, so taking one of my comments out of context and asking loaded, misleading questions about that comment isn't productive. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote is relevant for this article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. 207.107.159.66 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Why is it relevant? Which quote? As I said, the "quote" which was added was a chopped-up combination of several different parts of a longer article. This violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV, so this specific combination of quotes cannot be added to the article as it is. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In some cases, satirical responses to political issues may be appropriate, but the argument here for inclusion seem based on trying to present this satire as serious commentary; that is a flawed argument and lacks transparency. The quote itself is redundant and wordy, taking forever to get to the point. This is fine for the entertainment outlets he writes for, but not for an encyclopedia. Any points it makes are already addressed by others in the article. If Hopkins' satirical responses are notable enough to be mentioned at all, and I'm not convinced they are, a brief reference to his writing satire would be more than enough. I don't think he needs to be mentioned. Actually, per Doug's points, that's a hard no. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I also concur that we may well have some WP:LOUTSOCK issues here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with several of you. We should not refrain from ridiculing the subject of our article, and none do it better than CJ Hopkins, or at least none already in our article. The source, Who Doesn’t Love Identity Politics? by CJ Hopkins, does an excellent job of demolishing the concept of "identity politics". There is no reason that I know of that Wikipedia should refrain from including an excerpt from a scathing critique of the subject of our article. This could beneficially lead to readers visiting the CJ Hopkins essay. We could do worse than including a quote such as "Who doesn’t love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia … everybody loves identity politics." (Other excerpted quotes are also possible.) It does a good job at suggesting the differing points on the spectrum of politics that share the concept of "identity politics" and therefore how it may be a slippery slope and an unproductive "lens" through which to view politics. I think our aim is to present all facets of an issue. I think CJ Hopkins views identity politics as tantamount to a delusional "lens" through which to view political alliances. That is a perspective that warrants inclusion in our article. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

All he is saying is that that elites encourage identity politics as an alternative to class politics. That's already stated in the article and there is no need for a lengthy quote. TFD (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

[Grayfell] "Again, it doesn't matter that you personally like it. This isn't a popularity contest.

"It doesn't appear that any of those outlets are reliable. The first two I found were Unz Review and Zero Hedge, both of which have histories of publishing WP:FRINGE material, including extremist conspiracy theories. This is another indicator that this is just another random, barely notable person's irrelevant personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)"

Hopkins trying to influence the article

This[4] has been republished a number of places and has pretty clearly inspired people to come here and to his article, in part to attack an editor. Note that I've removed one such attack by an IP at the end of the last section. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller—an article on science or math or physics or astronomy is held to standards of factuality. An article on "Identity politics" is held to standards of quality and relevance. High quality lampooning of the subject of an article on "Identity politics" should really be considered for inclusion. "Identity politics" is essentially racism expanded beyond race. It is a naturally occurring human tendency and we all defend it to an extent. But it is entirely relevant for someone to come along and lampoon the concept for what it is. CJ Hopkins has not made a faux pas when he writes "The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it." The essay by CJ Hopkins is clearly relevant to the topic of the article. The question is why anyone would be arguing to keep reference to it out. A quote from the essay is capable of speaking for itself. The title itself is interesting in the context of this article: "Who Doesn’t Love Identity Politics?" We should be choosing which excerpt to include. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that they do not want that quote on this article. Look at the number of admins that have jumped in on this. Over literally one quote. And you got the infamous Phillip Cross that has shown up. Alternative media has increasingly become critical of Wikipedia over the past couple of years. It's pretty obvious they're protecting the billionaire/ruling class. Kissing up to power is all this is. Nothing really can be done, as google search has a damn near-monopoly all over the planet. And when people google search, damn near always Wikipedia shows up at the top. 83.209.103.81 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote doesn't really add anything to the article, though. To the extent that that view is noteworthy, we're already citing it to better sources. And if you look at the "Critiques of identity politics" section, we're devoting far less text to far more prominent people; it feels like the only reason we're even discussing devoting so much text to it at this point is because the author directed his readers here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You say "the author directed his readers here". The author didn't direct me here. You say "To the extent that that view is noteworthy, we're already citing it to better sources". What "view" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This quote should have been added. 78.63.131.87 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory statements within the page

Do others believe this constitutes a point of confusion or contradiction: Intersectional critiques

"Crenshaw applauds identity politics for bringing African Americans (and other non-white people), gays and lesbians, and other oppressed groups together in community and progress.[12] But she critiques it because 'it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.'[12]"

Reading the above in addition to other statements on the page, I wonder if some were taken out of context or are in need of additional information from Crenshaw. Something is lost in identity politics, Crenshaw appears to believe. I take that to mean ignoring similarities or shared political interests across groups. However, is that described? Taken together, the quotes appear pertinent yet confusing. Also, what does "together in progress" mean? It seems a vague phrase if it means together for the purposes of progressive social justice organizing. Thoughts? --PaulThePony (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I see no contradiction. It's good but has flaws. That's not contradictory. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Updating the critiques of identity politics

The content on this page summarizing and characterizing the criticisms of identity politics was narrow and academic and needed updating with the current and latest criticisms found in mainstream political criticism and reporting following the 2016 election cycle. My additions are aimed at doing that, with citation to the work of credible contemporary political commentators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that all the criticisms of identity politics in this article come from progressives. I think conservatives have much to criticize. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC) I don't think this page should be a battle ground between progressives and conservatives.

Certainly not. Wikipedia turned Wikileftia and is a playground of leftists, when it comes to politics. But, given their mechanism, this is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E7:5730:AE00:7CE2:E1C8:1A6E:6B2F (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it particularly helpful to cite heavily biased figures such as Brenden O'Neil and Owen Jones in an article trying to be factual or balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DucksCourage (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Definition of identity politics is wrong

The article introduces identity politics as: "Identity politics is a term that describes a political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas and organize based upon the interlocking systems of oppression that affect their lives and come from their various identities. Identity politics centers the lived experiences of those facing various systems of oppression to better understand the ways in which racial, economic, gender, and other forms of oppression are linked and to ensure that political agendas and political actions arising out of identity politics leave no one behind."

Even though the motive to organize based on group identity can be to combat discrimination and oppression, this is not necessarily the case. A different case of identity politics can for example be the Scottish National Party who seeks to appeal to the Scottish national identity. Identity politics is simply when a group of people organize politically to promote the interests of their own group. On this basis, I will change the definition in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastore Barracuda (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You cannot change the definition because that is how it is defined in the literature about identity politics and what the article is about. Your example of the SNP is misleading because it does not appeal to identity but to location. Furthermore, Scotland has been oppressed by England in its asymmetrical relationship. Notice reliable sources do not refer to the BNP as identity politics, although racist groups often mimic identity politics ("white power," "white lives matter," etc.) TFD (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I would not say that the SNP appeals to location first and foremost. If there was no Scottish identity there would not be any Scottish independence movement. So if Scotland was populated by people who view themselves as English, there would not be any independence movements in my opinion. Furthermore, I think that the definition you support refers exclusively to left wing identitarianism. Even though this is a form of identity politics, all identitarian movements do not fit this definition. Nazism and the Grey Wolves from Turkey are examples of identitarian movements that don't fit your definition. Right wing identitarian movements like these incorporate nativism, nationalism and xenophobia to create a different version of identity politics. Lastly, the dictionaries don't define identity politics the way you define it so why should we operate with that definition? - Pastore Barracuda (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely don't support this rewrite with the current sources you used. You replaced multiple academic sources with a cite to three dictionaries - that's plainly worse sourcing. The rewording also, to my reading, doesn't really summarize what the article says. That said, I absolutely think you're right that there are forms of identity politics that don't push back against oppression (and even ones that essentially exist to support existing hierarchical structures)... but covering that in the article is going to require more time digging up sources, and it's complicated by the fact that even that form of identity politics is usually expressed as grievances. We have a section on white identity politics in the article, for instance, which isn't really reflected in the lead; but it would require more work and better sources to reconcile that, rather than just rewriting the lead around a WP:DICTDEF. Currently that section relies way too heavily on opinion pieces for my taste, too. --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly groups that don't push back against oppression, but I don't think that is referred to as identity politics. TFD (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of the existing white identity politics section? Like I said, I think it needs better sources in some parts, but some of the sources there are good, and better sources certainly exist. (White identity politics is not the only example, it's just the easiest one to search for quickly due to the heavy recent coverage.) See eg. [5] or [6]. More broadly, if you search Google Scholar for recent articles about identity politics (post-2017), a lot of them cite it as driving Euroscepticism and similar nationalist movements rather than opposing oppression (eg. [7] - that's something the article currently only mentions very briefly in passing, but it looks like they're a lot of sources for it. I feel like part of the issue is that a lot of the understanding of identity politics has changed relatively recently (with Trump in the US and the backlash to the migration crisis in Europe) - both of these things have definitely been connected to identity politics by reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The section begins by sourcing the concept to Kaplan and Weinberg, p. 18, although they don't actually use the term in their book.[8] It then quotes a number of opinion pieces where the term is used.

Terminology often presents a problem in politics articles because phrases can be used with different meanings. We have to be certain these other authors are referring to the same concept or using the phrase to refer to a different concept. I am sure when the term was coined in the 1970s to refer to minority voting blocks, the authors didn't have in mind white, male Klansmen. In the same sense, we don't use the term minority to refer to a dominant ethnic group, even when they are numerically speaking in the minority. (In that sense men are a minority since there are fewer men than women.)

TFD (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well as you say yourself, there are forms of identity politics that don't push back against oppression. So why should the definition be that this is what identity politics is? - Pastore Barracuda (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Because we actually need better sources saying that, and even with those we can't ignore the existing sources. Dictionary definitions aren't good because they don't help bridge that gap between different definitions and are worse than the cites already in the article. So what you need to do is go over the links I linked above (and do some searching of your own), looking for sources discussing various concepts of identity politics. The ideal sources would be ones that directly bridge the gap TFD refers to above (ie. referring to the different ways the term is used, or how its usage has changed, or at least using it in a way that makes it clear that some scholars consider white identity politics and the like to be part of the concept or a related concept or whatever.) As a starting point I would search for citations to the existing sources in the article, or other related papers, that also discuss white identity politics or the rise of ethnonationalism - or even just stuff after 2016, which is likely to reflect shifting perspectives on the topic based on what I saw in a quick search. Ideal sources would discuss them in a way that links the topics and shows how we can discuss the link between the topics. Then you need to add or rewrite the relevant parts of the article body before you change the lead, showing how these concepts are connected. I believe there should be secondary sources discussing the entire topic from a distance in a way that makes everything clear, but finding them, figuring out what they say, and then rewriting the relevant parts of the article or adding new bits covering these aspects is going to be a lot of work. Even with all that the current definition probably still has to stay in the lead and the body; with appropriate sources we'd just be able to discuss other definitions or how scholarship on the topic changed over time, how they connect, the disputes between different definitions and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am open to changing the definition provided that we have high quality reliable sources. I wouldn't want to use a dictionary, but a book about identity politics that meets rs would be acceptable. We would have to explain how a type of politics originally described as a method for helping the oppressed can also refer to oppressive politics. I noticed the following in a recent source about identity politics: "Identity politics is not only the province of leftist or progressive groups. Recently, its use by the right and by white supremacists has become a focal point of national and global conversations." (Pushing Back, Ariella Rotramel, University of Georgia Press 2020, p. 2.)[9] So perhaps we could qualify our definition with the term usually and mention that it is sometimes used by the right. But it seems to be an exceptional claim. The originators of the concept would have been aware of white racism since that was what identity politics was meant to counter, but they didn't seem to identify it as identity politics. "White identity politics" could be an ironic term like "socialism for the rich" or "socialization of losses." It doesn't mean that the U.S. is literally socialist because government transfers wealth from the masses to the elites. TFD (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the whole point of the concept of "identity politics" is that it focuses on identities rather than oppression or social problems in general. It appeals to people's instinctive racism. As an example, the BLM movement is not concerned about police shootings in general, but shootings of a particular group. And the statistics do not even really support that that group is more victimized than others. People have been historically very passionate about identities such as Catholics vs Protestants, but not very passionate about injustice such as rich vs poor. The lede does not bring that aspect out at all. Tuntable (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We go with what sources say, not our own interpretations. In any case, the originators of the concept believed that black women were treated unequally and wanted equality for themselves. They were also willing to work with other groups they considered to be oppressed based on immutable qualities. In theory at least that differs from racist groups who believe their group is superior to others. TFD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

= i agree with those above that the opening paragraph is narrow in how identity politics is defined. this narrowness is evident in that the three citations listed all refer to one single instance of how the term has been used re Black feminist, Barbara Smith and the Combahee River Collective. identity politics is not the exclusive domain of "the oppressed," nor are its objects always to "leave no one behind." identity politics can constitute the core basis of the ideologies of "the oppressed" and "oppressors" alike. re TFD: "You cannot change the definition because that is how it is defined in the literature" – the three references cited in the opening paragraph are not representative of "the literature," they provide only one example of how the term has been applied in a very limited context, and they are redundant (not to be interpreted as PA on TFD, whose efforts here are much appreciated). re TFD's more recent comment, whatever the "originators" intended can go in the history section. moreover, what "originators" may have intended is likely irrelevant to how the term is used more broadly, both in the past and in the present. Thus, this aspect of broadness is what should be captured in the opening paragraph. I agree with other commenters that there is a need for further review and inclusion of better sources (but I have little to add in this regard). Such sources should include a wide canvassing of how the term has been used and applied in various contexts, and from these sources a broader definition can be synthesized. I think the opening paragraph needs to be revised to provide a more general definition of the term. I suggest something along the lines of the following would move in the direction of a more appropriate improvement: 'identity politics' is the way in which social movements — ethnic, religious, gender-related or otherwise culturally-based – become involved in politics to expand their identity claims (Schafer, H. 2004. Identity Politics and the Political Field: A Theoretical Approach to Modeling a ‘Field of Identity Politics.’ Raab, J. (ed.). New World Colors: Ethnicity, Belonging and Difference in the Americas. Tempe: Bilingual Press & Trier).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 600:1700:cdf0:6090:c94c:949:21f5:8472 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

I think there should be a section on the civil rights movement in USA of the 50's and 60's.

It is probably the most famous identity political movement ever. GoldenSensei (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

a strange sentence

One paragraph begins "In 1998, political scientists Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg predicted that, by the late 20th-century,..." If they were predicting in 1998, they only had 1~3 years left in "the late 20th-century," which they were already in. Kdammers (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one who noticed that. 94.78.159.157 (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

grammar

This is not a (proper) sentence: "Similar patterns appear in the 21st century are commonly referenced in popular culture,[59] and are increasingly analyzed in media and social commentary as an interconnected part of politics and society."79.134.37.83 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

POV Tag

@StellarHalo: could you please elaborate on your reasons for adding the POV tag? Your edit summary was "heavily biased against the article subject with undue weight given to criticisms". It will be difficult for editors to evaluate and potentially work to fix such a non-specific grievance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Three whole sections (Nature of the movement, Critiques and criticisms of identity politics, and Intersectional critiques) devoted to heavily criticizing the article subject. Meanwhile, there is a huge lack of content that explains why identity politics is good. I am not saying those sections should be removed but we are going to need a lot more content from the pro-identity politics pov. StellarHalo (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but WP:NPOV doesn't mean balance between pro and con. Do you have reason to believe that criticism of identity politics is given more weight in this article than it is in coverage by reliable sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

StellarHalo, could you elaborate on your placement of the POV template? I'm not opposed to the tag placement if it meets requirements, but I don't see that it's yet been justified based on the requirements in the template usage notes as specified in bullets 1, 2, and 4 (serious issue identified; discouragement of drive-by tagging; prevalence in sources, not among WP editors). It shouldn't be up to other editors like Firefangledfeathers to have to request this information, it should be an inherent part of placement of the tag at the outset, based on your belief that there is "a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view". I don't see that that due diligence has happened, yet, as there is no current discussion about POV problems in the article on this page, just the sudden appearance of a tag out of nowhere.

One can discuss the possible defects of an article and options for improvement in a discussion without placement of a tag, and it sounds like you have two editors willing to do that already, and there are also another 400 editors watching this article who might be willing to participate. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding more examples

Can we add more examples for identity politics and expand on the current examples? For example, we could also write about Asian, Hispanic, indigenous identity politics, and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsx1 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Deficiency in Neutral Tone

The article as it currently stands, is deficient in the neutral tone that is required of Wikipedia articles, and requires improvement, so that it does not seem like as if Wikipedia is stating these points of view, but its sources. As mentioned above ("Identity is not just by oppression"), parts of the article read as "this is what x is", when it should read as "this is what y states that x is".Chantern15 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Left-Wing Bias Of Some Grade

This article has some grade of left-wing bias due to perhaps its topic and the sources which the writers of this article have used, and I believe that there needs to be some balancing out with other viewpoints.Chantern15 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 Even some of the criticism is from the left, this is not to say that this is wrong, but when taken within the context of the whole article, it definitely makes it seem like other viewpoints are being omitted.Chantern15 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 As an example, so that it does not seem that I am nit-picking, there is mention of Anarcho-Primitivism which is a very obscure left-wing ideology, but right-wing ideologies are merely mentioned generally or in passing (such as right-wing populism).Chantern15 (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

If you have a specific viewpoint you would like to suggest, please make a suggestion based on a reliable source here. The sentence about anarchy-primitivism is this one: Some groups have combined identity politics with Marxist social class analysis and class consciousness—the most notable example being the Black Panther Party—but this is not necessarily characteristic of the form. Another example is the group MOVE, which mixed Black nationalism with anarcho-primitivism which is not biased at all (it's a description of certain strands of IP) and is sourced. --Mvbaron (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a specific viewpoint as such, since I am not knowledgeable enough in this field, but hopefully, by pointing out what I perceive to be deficiencies, they can be fixed in the future by somebody else.Chantern15 (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Examples are incomplete, not fleshed out enough and to some extent redundant

The examples present seem incomplete, granted Wikipedia is not an exhaustive list, but many examples are from countries influenced by the Western Hemisphere directly (for ex. Maori Identity Politcs, New Zealand), other non-western examples would be appreciated, and it would certainly benefit the article if more examples are added. The examples perhaps need to be expanded on and combined at the same time. Such as, "Black Feminist Identity Politics" could be a sub-category under Gender, which currently reads more like a stub, and this would help expand it.Chantern15 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

+1 I agree, good point. more examples are always an improvement. Mvbaron (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they will be added at some future stage.Chantern15 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Vague Language

Under "LGBT issues", it states, "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work (namely, "Can the Subaltern Speak?") and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", this is vague language, especially near, "some supporters of identity politics" requires sources to back it up. Chantern15 (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

And additionally, "some forms of identity politics", which form of identity politics?Chantern15 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Hmm, the reference to this sentence says: Strategic essentialism as a category was significantly influenced by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s presentation as a concept to challenge Western feminism’s historical complicity with imperialism. Which seems good enough to source the claim that "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work ... and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", right? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that it covers which forms of "identity politics" are described as "strategic essentialism", nor does it tell us which supporters of IP were taking these stances.Chantern15 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Identity Is Not Just By Oppression

One's identity is not just defined by oppression, a person who's identity gives them privilege and if they wish to maintain it is also part of identity politics. Chantern15 (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Or if it imparts no benefit or loss either Chantern15 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

We should strive to make this article more neutral. Chantern15 (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The term identity politics was invented to refer to oppressed rather than advantaged people. Neutrality means reflecting what sources say. if you have a a problem with the concept, this is not the place to change it. TFD (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Then where would be the place to change it, if not here on an encyclopedia? Chantern15 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Since encyclopedias summarize information in the literature, you would need to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal and persuade experts to change their definition of identity politics. Once you do this, we will change the article to reflect the new literature. TFD (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The point about oppression, I saw the links, are not from journals, one is an article on a socialist website, one is an article on the Berkeley website and the other is also an article from a libertarian syndicalist website. The point about identity being defined by oppression is not from an academic journal, so the first paragraph does not satisfy your own criteria. And nowhere does it state that these sources are stating this, it merely seems like as if Wikipedia itself is stating this. This is in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TONE and WP:WEIGHT.Chantern15 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I have taken an excerpt from an academic journal "Annual Review of Sociology" and added the description of identity politics as seen here: Chantern15 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

It's unfortunate that my edit was reverted. None of the sources for the first paragraph are from academic sources, and it undermines the neutrality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Chantern15 (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Added neutrality tag to the first para for further work. Chantern15 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I would like to say that sourcing information 2/3rds from articles on socialist websites and just one article from the Berkeley University Website while omitting academic sources, classifies as "not-neutral" with respect to the first para. Chantern15 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

there's plenty of literature, academic or not, on IP. I don't get the problem here. Mvbaron (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The introduction of this article does not source from academic sources. The definition of IP is different in academia, when compared to Democratic/Libertarian Socialism, that's the problem here. Please see the link that I have included down here. Chantern15 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

There is undue weight being given to socialist sources over academic sources. Chantern15 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Not to mention that the article is lacking a neutral voice. Instead of saying "x source says" it's merely "this is what x is", this goes against the neutral tone required of articles on Wikipedia. Chantern15 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

First, that makes no sense. wikipedia does not only rely on academic sources (other sources if they are reliable are allowed). Second, there are reliable socialist academic sources (heck, Marx and Engels were academics). Third, feel free to add more academic sources to the lead, or start a discussion with sources about why you feel the current definition is incorrect or add more definitions to the article body. Mvbaron (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but these are not academic socialist sources, if they were, I would have no problem, or less of a one, these are just articles. And furthermore, the article does not state that it is these sources stating this, it seems more like Wikipedia is stating this. I do not know if LibSyn and MonthlyReview are reliable sources. They slant towards a particular political view, in this case socialism, so I do not know how reliable these are. If these sources are to be used, it should state that "socialist websites such as LibSyn and the MonthlyReview state that the following is the definition of IP", it does not do that in the article. It clearly states in the article that oppression is the basis for identity, but the link which I have included here provides a more balanced definition of IP. Chantern15 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The citations are also at the end of the para, making it more arduous for readers to understand which lines of the para are associated with which citation, there should be inline citations, as opposed to all the citations at the end of the para. Chantern15 (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Of course, whatever changes I do make, are reverted. So, if I do add something or change the structure of the para to be more neutral, how do I know that it won't be reverted? Chantern15 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Academic sources vs socialist sources is not a distinction that makes sense; the two categories obviously overlap. My concern is more that the lead does not accurately reflect the body but articulates a particular perspective. While some important self-described advocates of identity politics, such as the Combahee River Collective, take an intersectional approach that centres the lived experience of the oppressed in general within a redistributive/socialist framework, the term is often used to describe those who prioritise single identities (oppressed or not) over an intersectional approach or to describe those who prioritise the politics of recognition over the politics of redistribution, and this is the sense in which identity politics is often used as a derogatory word, which is not reflected in the lead at present. The lead should show the range of ways the term is used. The academic article Chantern15 cites is a good example of a text which neatly acknowledges the contradictory uses to which the term is put. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I had a go at a bold revision of the lead to make it more neutral and encyclopedic and better reflect the body, incorporating Chantern15's ref. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but I feel that the problem has been compounded, now the leading paragraph is too verbose and is now more opaque in its meaning. The problems of inline citations being absent are still present, where should references 2, 3, 4 be present in the para(?), and unfortunately, your edit has added more vague language. "Many contemporary sources", which contemporary sources? "According to many", according to whom? Who is Kimberle Crenshaw? Where is that information sourced from?Chantern15 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Where is the information on particularism and universalism coming from?Chantern15 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, academic and socialist sources do overlap, but not here, none of the socialist sources here are academic (for the first para as it was). And for all sources there should be a neutral tone used, which is not present here. The article is merely stating, "x is this", instead of "y writing for z source is stating that x is this". Chantern15 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Chantern15 I think there's a misunderstanding: the lead is not required to have citations, it is supposed to be a summary of the main article text. Mvbaron (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Chantern15, yes Mvbaron is correct: the lead should summarise the body and would only normally have citations where the info isn't in the body or is likely to be challenged. The info on particularism and on Crenshaw is from the body. And if someone wants to know who Crenshaw is, they can click the link or hover on it to find out. Which contemporary sources is partially answered by footnotes 2-4. Opaque is definitely a bad thing, so work still to do, and wordy is also bad (although this is still under 4 paras). I would get rid of the part of paragraph 2 that runs from after notes 2-4 up to note 5, and possibly move those sentences down into the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, if the lead has to summarize the body, but if there are already citations present, perhaps they should be inline. Additionally, Bob, could you inform me where the article noticeboard is? I can't find it.Chantern15 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Chantern15 which citations are you saying should be inline? And what are you referring to when you ask about the "article noticeboard"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley citations 2, 3 and 4. I currently don't want to go through the 1 hr 40 min podcast, but the others should be easy. I'm referring to your comment above, where you mentioned the "article noticeboard". When we were talking about reliable sources.Chantern15 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Chantern15, I'm still confused. Maybe I don't understand the word "inline" correctly, but notes 2-4 are currently inline footnotes. (Currently, the references need filling out a bit.) And I can't see a use of "article noticeboard". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, that's okay, we can forget about the "article noticeboard" issue. About the "inline" citations, they're not strictly inline, because they are at the end of the para, so I'm just wondering which of 2, 3 and 4 refer to which parts of the respective para, which is what a reader would wonder too.Chantern15 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I believe notes 2-4 are sources for the two sentences which precede them. I think that’s reasonably clear from their placing mid-para. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, than you for providing clarity!Chantern15 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Chantern15, I see where I used the words "article noticeboard". I used it on the RSN, whose attention you brought to this article, where I said: The sources appear to be reliable for the statements of the Combahee River Collective and Barbara Smith. (Monthly Review especially, which is a publication of some standing; the other source is a non-notable podcast series but the episode features Smith herself.) The question is more (a) is it DUE, and (b) are Smith and the Collective the best sources to use for making general encyclopedic claims about identity politics in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article. Those aren't questions for this noticeboard but for the article noticeboard. By "article noticeboard", I meant this talk page we're on now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, thank you for your clarification! Hopefully we can come to some conclusion about whether they are due and whether or not they are the best sources to use in the first voice.Chantern15 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2016 and 27 April 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carolinaann94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsupatterson. Peer reviewers: Forclassaccount.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Devikajhaveri, Hunerwithat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Brendan O'Neill quote

The quote makes an important point about narrow interpretations of identity politics. I would, however, edit it for length and generality:

'Now, we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning. Chrismorey (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chrismorey outright editing & wrongfully playing with the words & biography of a living person is entirely wrong. If you edit Conservative Brenadan O'Neill's qoute to favor identity politics, instead of the satirical part, you are purposefully vandalizing the biographies of a living person by wiki rules. Mike0000000 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone could claim that the edited version I suggested reverses O'Neill's argument. Furthermore, though my recall at this distance in time is hazy, my statement that I 'would' edit it strongly implies that I did not do so, but opened it up for talk. I'm confident O'Neill was not being satirical, based on other work of his I've read.

I note that the quote in question is marked 'undue weight? discuss'. That's what I was doing. You can disagree, but kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks and loaded words like 'wrongful' and 'vandalizing'.

It is common practice to edit quotes and mark where material has been elided, often with conventions including ellipses. As for its affecting O'Neill's 'biography', I don't know where you get that from. I haven't even looked at the article on him. Chrismorey (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chrismorey you are objectively removing the critique in the qoute & not just strawmanming but misrepresenting it if you keep "protect their worldview" but cross out the critique of "which has nothing to do with the world," along with keeping "to look inward" but removing the "to obsess over the body & self." Mike0000000 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion yet on whether O'Neill's quote should be included ("undue weight" issue), but if it is in the article, it should be the full quote, not elided as suggested by Chrismorey. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Critiques

In the socialist critique section, there is a short sentence on critique from the right. It may be sensible to move this to, or consolidate it into another section, or to expand on it under another header. Steinschmeißer (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)