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)

Could you provide some reliable sources that explain what "neo-racism" is and why DiAngelo's work falls into the category, please? — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source giving some criticism, but there's plenty in the academic literature.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people Rustygecko (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

There's lots more of it

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/antiracism-training-white-fragility-robin-diangelo-ibram-kendi.html Rustygecko (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

London Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nice-racism-by-robin-diangelo-review-rwgnb82mm Rustygecko (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Rips it to pieces

https://medium.com/arc-digital/dear-white-people-please-do-not-read-robin-diangelos-white-fragility-7e735712ee1b Rustygecko (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so? There are plenty of reviews that are not quoted in the article. This article should contain a very, very short set of examples of what's available in the literature, and the book articles can contain a little bit more, but we cannot summarise each of hundreds or possibly thousands of reviews. — Bilorv (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Okay so?" That's your response? Nobody is saying Wikipedia should summarize every critique of her out there but anytime anyone adds in section about the large amount of controversary surrounding her work it gets scrubbed. Douglas Murray refers to her espousing a kind of Neo-Racism in his book The War On The West. His book is a New York Times Bestseller unless I am mistaken. She is a deeply controversial figure but any mention of it at all gets scrubbed from Wikipedia. Meanwhile J.K. Rowling has a section discussing her views on biology sex and transgender people. But we can't discuss any of this with Robin Diangelo? 73.239.49.235 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Gain consensus here before including. Inserting with an edit summary demanding discussion to remove is not how this works.(And I do think the article may be a little too kind to her given how other writer's controversial views are covered.) However, most of the criticism is directed at her published works, rather than personal statements she has made, which is significantly different than JK RowlingSlywriter (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion my stance is that we include a section detailing the controversy around Diangelo. There used to be one that slowly shrank in size until it was completely removed. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure what else I can say, if consensus is required than I will never overcome being stonewalled. Is there anyone with a substantial criticism to the inclusion of this section? If not i'll resubmit it in a month. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I proposed an extremely minimal section since I think anything substantial would be automatically denied. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversy sections inherently violate neutral point of view. In every article, there should be no separation of positive and negative material: both should be interspersed, as is the case in this article. Indeed, if we take the "Works" section and exclude the content that can neither be seen as positive nor negative ("DiAngelo wrote book X in year Y"), about half of the section is negative feedback and half the section either puts forward DiAngelo's view or gives positive feedback. This is already quite negatively skewed. Adding more negative feedback without adding more of the positive feedback (almost all of which is currently omitted) violates due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the content of her wikipedia page is too negative is absurd. Here's the only bit the addresses

" The book received mixed critical reception, with positive reviews in sources including New Statesman, The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, and the Los Angeles Review of Books, and negative reviews in sources including The Atlantic and The Washington Post. Publishers Weekly praised the book as "a thoughtful, instructive, and comprehensive book on challenging racism." Isaac Chotiner, in The New Yorker, said that in the wake of the Murder of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, DiAngelo's book served as a guide for many of the millions of Americans questioning systematic racism, though he notes that some critics have described her definition of white fragility as broad, reductive, and condescending towards people of color."

As you can see it is half of one line smashed between two lines complimenting her on a Wikipedia page that is full of praise for her work. The amount of praise disproportionate praise for her work would seem to violate neutral point of view. Considering that a large number of her contemporaries view her as a leading figure in a neo-racist movement, its odd that this is all the mention that gets. Meanwhile J.K Rowling has a whole sections dedicated to things she said on twitter. This is wikipedia's left wing bias being observed in real time.

It is bizarre to me that any attempt to characterize how an authors work was received in its hayday violates neutral point of view. I would bet a large sum of money I could come back in 40 years when the political winds have changed and there won't be such a strident fight against anything critical of Diangelo being included. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Author?

Surely somebody should be described as their primary income. She is a business woman selling her courses to corporate America? Rustygecko (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No, many people on Wikipedia are not described by their primary income (which is generally not public information). They are described by the primary reason for their notability. People are not generally notable because they run corporate courses. — Bilorv (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)