Talk:White Fragility

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White Fragility article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Reception should be little more balanced[edit]

There appears to be 2 to 1 positive/negative reviews in the reception section. There should be at least one more critical/negative review included in the section. I googled but had a difficult time finding one from a decent source, maybe someone else can find one and add it to that section. Yodabyte (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reception sections are supposed to cover and summarize the overall reception with weight according to how prominent and significant various opinions are; it's not supposed to be a balancing act where editors divide reception into "sides" and then decide what they personally think the best balance is. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's pretty clear that someone's been doing a "find one negative for every positive" on the Reception section when, as we see from the user above saying I googled but had a difficult time finding [an overall negative review] from a decent source, it's pretty clear that critical reception was generally positive. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Implicit, the Harvard research project that invented the IAT (Implicit Association Test) literally had to cover its website in disclaimers denying basically everything DiAngelo said in her book regarding their work (which is of course the basis of her book). The work has also failed every single peer review journal submission, every one. Critical reception was by no means generally positive, and was in fact astronomically negative. The general public, and non-critical reviews by people like fiction/non-fiction book reviewers gave it a generally positive reception. This is the key problem with a encyclopedia by lay people: they don't know the topics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.143.143 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I hope we'll have enough sources to really distinguish between lay people and professional researchers. Book reviewers are one thing for fiction, but something else for nonfiction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty, and journals are filled with them; they just don't do well on Wikipedia. Almost 3 years later and the Harvard rebuttal is STILL not on this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.143.143 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be bold and edit the article yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I be bold and suggest the addition of a 'Criticism' section?

'Reception' sections tend to explore the overall reaction to a subject, but let's also consider ad populum here for the sake of honest representation; whenever the topic is a book of politicized speculation, perhaps a more directly highlighted mention of some of the arguments against it are in order. Pocket83 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Reception section is a criticism section, in the sense of literary criticism. In the sense of "negative reception", this material should not be segregated and instead be incorporated throughout the Reception section as normal. To separate it implies that it is not a type of reception. The Reception section already contains, at far too much length to be due weight relative to the scholarship as a whole, arguments against DiAngelo. — Bilorv (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting my edit summary[edit]

I initially reverted the addition of the critical comment by Iqbal because it was in the wrong place, and I was going to move it to where it belongs. Then I noticed that the comment was already in the article. So all that was necessary was reverting the pointless edit. NightHeron (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]