Talk:Angry white male

Inline Citations

"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."

Is this better to use instead of the Reference tag? i.e.

Template:references

In my browser, I did not see the inline prompts but only the Reference prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. The term "tag" is ambiguous in Wikipedia jargon, so I'm not entirely clear what you mean by this. Citations place in <ref></ref> tags will generate inline citations, if that's what you mean. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"Derogatory"/"pejorative"/"racist"/"x" term

The Oxford (sourced via Lexico) entries can't even agree as to whether it's derogatory or not. "Angry white male" is labelled as derogatory whereas "angry white man" is not. The only other dictionary entry I can find for "angry white man" it is in V.S. Matyushenkov's Dictionary of Americanisms, Briticisms, Canadianisms and Australianisms which also does not label it as derogatory or a pejorative. Aside from these conflicting dictionary definitions, the only other instances I can find of this phrase supposedly being derogatory are instances of websites that rehost Wikipedia content and (as alluded to in the article body) David Leyonhjelm filing a complaint after "angry white male" was used to describe him.

In the case of Leyonhjelm, his complaint was thrown out:

But that has been turned on its head by the commission's decision to rebuff the claim at the first hurdle, declaring Senator Leyonhjelm's public remarks showed he was not truly aggrieved, and that the terms "white" and "male" were not considered terms of denigration.

Granted, the Australian Human Rights Commission isn't the definite authority on the nature of words but it's the only source I can find of "angry white male"/"angry white man" being commented on by an anti-discriminatory body.

It's easy enough to find instances of the term(s) being used in articles but not so easy to find articles discussing the supposed disparaging nature of the term(s). Given what I have typed above, I don't see how we can safely label it as "derogatory" or "racist" or "pejorative". I think it's best any sort of additional descriptor is left out. Cheers, ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• It's SOP to leave in the article in the status quo ante when discussions like this are talking place. A negative descriptor -- either "pejorative" or "derogatory" has been in the article for move than half of its existence, so removing it rewuires a consensus of the editors in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware leaving articles "status quo ante" is not "SOP", it's the work of an essay and not Wikipedia policy. But I digress. I will wait, but bear in mind that WP:CCC. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really taking sides here (on whether this term is racist, or not) because, to be blunt, I'm not really bothered, one way or another... This enquiry is one of pure curiosity... I would be grateful if someone could explain why the term "angry white man" is NOT a racist trope, but "angry black woman" IS considered to be just that, a racist trope. Indeed, the opening sentence of the lede, describes it as exactly that "...is a racist trope in American society." - This is a genuine query, without subtext or insinuation, because to me, except for the very obvious, they SEEM to be identical in every way... Why is one, one way, but the other, the other way? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Notable?

AFAICT, this seems to be a term used in a few news articles. It lacks a clear definition, an associated field of study, or a useful application. Is every new buzzword like “coastal elites” and “university establishment” worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oxenfording (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The term hardly "new", it's been around for quite a while. (The article says the early 90's, which makes it about 40 years old.) Google shows 137,000 Ghits for "angry white man" and 295,000 Ghits for "angry white men". That doesn't seem like "a few news articles" to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

See alsos

28 see alsos is too many. We should put see also links only to a few useful (and the most relevant) related articles. I tried to put a tag to highlight this but it was reverted without a proper explanation. --Jameboy (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a clear explanation in the edit summary: your tag was unnecessary. What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"? As long as they're relevant, there's no problem. It's not like the encyclopedia is running out of pixels. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO says that "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number." --Jameboy (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Define "reasonable". If you think some of the links aren't relevant, discuss those specific links here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"

Though not an official policy, see WP:COAT. Wallby (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why only America and Australia?

Why is this article only limited to America and Australia? Isn't this a global phenomenon? 142.114.116.167 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@142.114.116.167 Do you have a source that suggests that? I personally haven't heard the stereotype from where I live. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)