Talk:Robin DiAngelo

Coca Cola "controversy"

How reliable is it? A lot of the reporting is done by either conservative news sources or dubious ones, and it's basically screenshots shared with no evidence they are authentic. 174.93.250.35 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The current paragraph seems uncontroversial in fact but could use many more reliable sources (which I understand to exist) to show due weight, as the single reliable source wouldn't suffice. If you can source the claim that the backlash is by conservatives ("dubious" source backlash should simply be ignored) then that's worth attributing around the bit where the text reads "came under scrutiny". — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Added Newsweek as a citation, though still would like a source that doesn't use theblaze to confirm Coca-Cola's statement. Slywriter (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Snopes did a brief piece into it, and while they can confirm the slides, they can't confirm if it's "required viewing" of Coca-Cola's educational department as many conservative sources claim. User:Kittensfury (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither does wikipedia. We used Coca-cola's own words, "part of a series...not a focus..." Slywriter (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9749517/An-anti-racist-author-Robin-DiAngelo-makes-728K-year-speaking-engagements.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:DC7A:9DC9:F093:ED8C (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to attribute the "be less white" statements to DiAngelo, who made the remarks herself in the interview. To attribute the comments to "the course" is vague, and ultimately misleading, giving the false impression that she did not give the very specific advice and explanations that she did. Obsteve (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Better sources needed for "works in critical discourse analysis and whiteness studies"

It's currently self-sourced and sourced to an op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is the primary source not fine to verify what field of study an academic specializes in? — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm

Book review to consider including on her new book - [1] in case someone else gets time to go over before me-Pengortm (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Infopacket as a source

Regarding this edit, it seems WP:UNDUE to pull one arbitrary sentence out of her event requirements and highlight it in the article; requirements like that are, to my understanding, typical and unexceptional, whereas highlighting it in the text carries the unsourced implication that it is unusual, exceptional, and somehow significant. In any case we would need a secondary source indicating its significance to include it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If the book received mixed reception, as we say, then it is undue weight to have 1 sentence on criticism and 0 on praise: the quotes previously counterbalanced Her definition of white fragility has been criticized as being broad, reductive, and tautological. What sentence would you suggest instead, Aquillion, as a good summary of the praise of the book? — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Er, did you mean to post this in a different section? The bit I'm talking about isn't about criticism or praise; perhaps this ought to have new section. Anyway, there are two options. One, the New Yorker piece we're citing for that bit itself says (in the very paragraph before) Major corporations, such as Amazon and Facebook, embraced the slogan “Black Lives Matter” and brought DiAngelo in to speak. Millions of Americans began to consider concepts such as systemic racism and look anew at the racial disparities in law enforcement, and DiAngelo became a guide for many of them. So we could summarize that, as the most straightforward option; the source itself essentially contrasts the criticism with that positive reception. Alternatively, or in addition to that, we could go over the sources we currently describe as praising her and summarize what they actually say, collectively. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure how I mixed this up but I thought you were the person who made this edit and this was the reasoning for it. Addressed that separately. I agree that your removal here is right. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbed Criticism

It has been fascinating to watch Wikipedia gradually and carefully scrub all criticism of others from the Wikipedia page. For such a polarizing and controversial figure who ideas are often criticized as neo-racism by her contemporaries, there is zero mention of it on her Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's oozing left-wing bias is on display yet again. There used to be a controversy section that got shorter and shorter than was removed entirely, it included a dozen different sources at its peak. The editors here should be ashamed of themselves. Watch this post vanish away into the abyss as well by Robin's neo-racist fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.49.235 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)