Talk:Whiteness studies
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whiteness studies Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProjectBannerShell User:MiszaBot/config Script error: No such module "Message box".
WTF is white trash studies?
I think that at least needs a citation if such a thing actually exists 131.252.67.132 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I agree that there is something not quite right here. The phrase "white trash studies" appears in the lede but not in the body of the article, which is bad per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The phrase does not appear in the article White trash except once in the title of one of the sources. The only thing that makes me hesitant to remove it is that it has been in the article since November 2019. Maybe it means something to somebody? Can anybody explain/clarify/reword this? If not, I propose removing it and adding White trash to the See Also list instead. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per page 360 of the cited source: Template:Tq
- Template:Tq[1]
- This seems like useful context, so it should probably be explained, briefly, in the body of both this article and of white trash. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Criticism section
I flagged the article per the policy that criticism sections are generally not recommended. Whether or not this policy applies to ideologies, I can't say as they are often found in philosophy pages.
My main concern is that the section leads with criticisms from three figures known primarily for right-wing political commentary; the first (Horowitz) runs an anti-left watchdog site. Highlighting these very predictable criticisms obscures the more legitimate criticisms from qualified experts and actually skews the POV in favor of the field. It would be easy to come away from the article thinking that any criticism is just partisan whining. 2603:7081:1603:A300:E62B:4133:FEEE:6E66 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't argue with your characterization of David Horowitz and Douglas Murray as partisan whiners, but I don't think you can dismiss the other two, Dagmar Myslinska [2] and Alastair Bonnett [3], in that way. In any case, feel free to suggest other sources and critics who are more credible than Horowitz and Murray. NightHeron (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describes an ideology as "a set of beliefs or philosophies", so I would say that the subsection "Philosophy, religion, or politics" applies and it states that "For topics about a particular point of view (...) it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section". While I agree that leading the section with right-wing political commentary instead of academic analysis may not be the most informative approach, dismissing it entirely purely because of their partizanship would violate WP:PARTISAN. –Turaids (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)