Talk:Go woke, go broke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hey y'all! I sure hope y'all are havin' a mighty fine day today. I just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for takin' the time to contribute to Wikipedia by creatin' that there article.

I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Now y'all can rest easy and enjoy the rest of your day, along with your kinfolk! Y'all take care now, ya hear?

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Tags

@Raladic Seeing that you added the tags, what is your explanation for most of them? You only gave a quick explanation for the lede, but these are a lot of tags without much explanation. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, counter to your edit description, I do not have to justify myself, so please keep personal attacks out of the edit history.

Now as for why some of the tags, if it wasn’t already apparent - the article right now is littered with opinion pieces that are WP:RSEDITORIAL not properly cited as such and stated as facts instead.

There is also a lot of unreliable sources such as Newsweek, disneydining.com, .., which when all properly removed, leaves the article bare and some reliable sources in the article make no use of the phrase and instead are synthesized which amounts to original research unless they can actually be replaced by reliable sources without synthesis, if some exist.

Lastly, there is a clear slant with multiple for examples and only one counter example of it, hence the POV tag.

Now with that all said, I will re-add the tags and leave it for someone to actually clean up the article. Raladic (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, there was no personal attack. But if you feel that you do not need to justify adding these tags, then it should follow that others would feel no need to justify removing them, which feels like it could lead to an entirely pointless interaction, and my comment was to prevent drive-by tagging.

At any rate, the Newsweek articles on Target are bad, but mainly because they are labelled opinion, which isn't even allowed for reliable websites like Forbes. So, they should be removed. DisneyDining is probably redundant since CBS and NYT are more than reliable enough. The other potentially unreliable sources are corroborated by other reliable sources. However, I don't see how removing these would leave this article bare.

As for the "clear slant" there isn't one counter example of it, there are three counter examples. Four if you want to include the alternate explanation for the Bud Light sales drop. So, no, I wouldn't say there is a "clear slant." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia policy works, if an editor in good faith adds tags after careful analysis of the article in question, then there are clear guidelines on when it is appropriate to remove them.

As it stands, even after your edit you now made, the article is still heavily skewed in a particular direction. You said there are four counterexamples, but they are a mere word-drop in a by-sentence, versus multiple sections in the for. The counter examples are barely 100 words, whereas the for are over 600, so if you say they are equal in count, then surely they should also have somewhat even representation in the article and not present WP:UNDUE weight to one side.

Also, I don’t think you understood my comment about synthesis above, which is considered original research, sentences like

Disney as too enthralled in identity politics and isolating fans who identify with the American right and social conservative movements. are firstly a WP:NPOV violation, and secondly is not mentioned in the cited New York Times article and should be removed. The red says Disney cancelled the project that the NYT article discusses for business reasons.

I will add the tags back, please only remove them once the points I mentioned are actually addressed. Raladic (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"If an editor in good faith adds tags after careful analysis of the article in question, then there are clear guidelines on when it is appropriate to remove them." You specify it is policy. Which one states this? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is linked right up at the top of the article with the linked issues - WP:MTR. The policy outlines when removal of the tags is appropriate.

It also explicitly calls out when it is not appropriate to remove the tags and the onus is on the remover, such as if the remover doesn’t understand the tags, they should not remove them, same if there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, they should not be removed until consensus has been reached, which it clearly has not at this point.

Please familiarize yourself with the above policies before removing the tags again. Raladic (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:MTR: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." If the Wikipedia policy does exist, then I would like to see it. I don't mind a little reading, but it appears that we could do some learning together. Cheers. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The section on Marvel Cinematic Universe is clearly just an opinion and doubtful RS. You can choose different films and shows and come to a different conclusion. The source argues for ignoring some films, you can state them as opinions but not as fact. Same for the Barbie film. Note that the used of the word "claimed" suggest possible bias per MOS:CLAIM. Associating woke with the vaccination issue is also somewhat dubious. Hzh (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus (per WP:PRS anyway) for TheGamer or Barron's. Ideally we would have something like Variety comment on it. However, the claim in TheGamer that ‘Go Woke, Go Broke’...was used for Black Panther and Captain Marvel, which grossed $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion respectively isn't particularly contentious.

The Barbie sources are not, to the best of my knowledge, opinion sources, and they are indeed reliable.

The Rolling Stone's article on Carhartt and vaccines does say that it was considered "woke", and the company was subsequently hit with a boycott.

So, the sources and statements seem fairly fitting to me. I do think the MCU could use better sources, however. But for the claims the sections makes, it still seems fine. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the selection of examples and how you write them. You can choose some films and used that as examples, but others as counterexamples. The Gamer is clearly an opinion piece since it argues that films that failed are not good example, but the ones that succeeded are good examples. Opinion should not be given as facts. You argued above that Newsweek is not RS as an opinion piece, the same thing would apply for The Gamer if not even more so (who thinks a gaming site is RS on social issue?), and Barron is a lesser-known magazine than Forbes, their articles would apply in the same way as Forbes. I will repeat again about MOS:CLAIM, if you want to be neutral, you cannot suggest that examples for something is doubtful but not counterexamples, especially when you used examples that are opinions. Label both as "claimed" if you want, don't do it for only one. Other people who complained that this is original research, and that would be true, since people here are randomly selecting examples/counterexamples that support their positions. The article is clearly written from a specific viewpoint, for example, in the lead, it tries to explain away the problem with Bud Light, but uses Barbie as a positive example. All those are opinions, and you can state them as the opinions of detractors/supporters, but not state them as fact. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is we aren't using it for its opinion. For instance, the Mary Sue is considered both reliable and opinionated at times. When used for its opinion on a claim (that is, the source of loss of revenue) it was properly attributed. Stating that the term "woke" was used to describe either of the films isn't really an opinion, and neither is the nature of the film's success.

But, hey, since you have a problem with the source, I can easily replace it, I guess. Although with the new sources really didn't change the section much because it wasn't being used for its opinion. Hmm.

Anyway, I could change "claim," but I genuinely don't see that changing much. They are only claimed examples since, as pointed out, other reputable sources have challenged that it came from the boycotts at all. Others doubt that the boycotts have had any sort of impact whatsoever.

As for the Bud Light thing in the lede, well, it's summing up information from the body. They have indeed been explained by other possible sources. Such viewpoints were indeed attributed, such as by stating they came from D'Angelo and Leishman. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The choice of the films as counterexamples is an opinion. The Gamer article is clearly using those films to support her assertion, and disputes others as example. Like I said, you can also choose other films are examples supporting "Go woke go broke" (with sources that say the films are failures and linked them to "woke-ness"), so why aren't you using them? The choices are therefore personal selections, especially when you use an argumentative source (therefore you are also argumentative in using it without stating it as an opinion). I would rather that you use a neutral source that isn't argumentative, and use the examples given in such sources.

You are stating something as fact in the lede without stating that it is an opinion, that is even worse. That the attribution is given in the body is irrelevant.

Many of the sources state that the phrase is "get woke go broke", so you might want to change the title. Here it gives the origin of the phrase, you might want to add that in the origin - [1]. The approach taken in that article is more appropriate.

No explanation is given with link with Covid. None of sources when I search for the term "get woke go broke" mentioned Covid, if you want to add that, you would have to explain that is not the usual meaning of woke. The Rolling Stone article is also an argumentative piece. Hzh (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know what else to say. The Gamer was removed.

The BBC says: According to experts, the key factor that could ultimately determine how a brand weathers a woke-related boycott is how they respond to the initial fall-out. I mean, this is a reputable source stating that experts say something. This isn't an opinion. This is what the source says. So what's said in the lede and in the body is indeed covered by the BBC source, which just isn't an opinion piece. The counterexamples are covered by reputable sources. At this point all I can do is shrug my shoulders. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone asserts that conservatives sought to boycott the company over vaccine mandates, which they seemed to have considered "woke". If you disagree with its assessment, by all means do so. But I would heavily suggest you don't assert your opinions as fact in respect to this article. Alternatively, you could find sources that give evidence or argue to the contrary. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point of the BBC quote is for, it doesn't address anything I said, especially when the quote is actually given as an opinion ("according to experts"). It is not stated as a fact, and something like "according to" how you would need to phrase it in the lede. There are also many examples given in the neutral sources, why not use them? The same thing you argued against Newsweek applies to the Rolling Stone, it's an opinion. Really I'm finding it hard to find the link between Covid and woke in RS, even fewer that linked it to "get woke go broke", when you have so few sources that say that, you might say it's a fringe opinion and WP:UNDUE. Hzh (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

🤷 Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'll put my two cents after all. For what's it worth anyways. Me being transgender and a member of the LGBTQ+ community and all. A lot of people would, of course, consider me "woke" but I myself did not have the vaccine injected, even after I had Covid myself. My point is, we have to be very careful of the sources we add here, especially in these divisive times, there are many, usually reliable, sources that are leaning either left or right when it comes down to this, very divisive issue. Sites such as FOX News for example, which of course I think is super-right. Some sites, I even suspect, are being paid by both political parties in the United States! So, it will be hard to find sources that are entirely unbiased and reliable, but we can. Or just say "x source alleges that, but xx source, on the other hand, alleges, on the contrary, that"..like that. Antonio Tilda Martin (que paso, papa?) 06:52, 8 August, 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Go woke go broke → Go woke, go broke – This would seem to make the most sense. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support

2G0o2De0l (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede

Since there seems to be some conflict over the lede, I should argue why I wrote against this: Though other explanations exist, many companies which have "gone woke", particularly those which scaled back on their "wokeness" in response to the slogan being used against them, have indeed suffered revenue declines, the most notable examples of which being Target Corporation and Bud Light parent AB InBev.

For one, I think it isn't very concise. As Raladic has pointed out, it also does seem to feel a little like synth and editorial given the way it is worded, weighing against companies that are supposedly woke, and it seems to invalidate the "other explanations." And, well, I'm not sure what to say about Invader stating that they did synthesize.

I don't see much of an issue with the lede that I support:

Companies affected by these boycotts, such as Bud Light and The Walt Disney Company, have had their loss of sales explained by other reasons, such as the company's response to the boycotts. Movies said to be "woke" have been followed by financial success; Greta Gerwig's 2023 movie Barbie is noted for challenging the slogan's validity.

If the concern is that it isn't neutral, how? It addresses what is found in the body. One, that the companies were affected by the boycotts. Two, the results of these boycotts were mixed, and the loss in sales have been attributed to other causes. Three, a prominent movie that challenged the slogan.

Maybe I am biased towards this because I wrote some of it. Although I think I prefer it more for the fact that it's pretty straight to the point.

@InvadingInvader Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think that if applicability of the slogan is mixed, we should cover both sides in which how it's both inapplicable and applicable. We have sections of counter examples and applicable examples. What I believe that version of the lead does is only seek to prove its inapplicable, and that version of the lead is one in which I absolutely see bias.

The phrasing suggests that the entire slogan is false and should be invalidated, almost as if it's a fringe theory. One sentence says it's mixed in applicability, the second says that it doesn't exist, and the third says it's completely disproved by Barbie. If it's mixed, and assuming we use three sentences, we should have one sentence saying it's mixed, a second showing in which how it is worked (which I tried my best to add into how responses to go woke go broke really are a major kicker), and a third disproving it. The slogan has clearly had success in certain markets, especially Bud Light, as the company would not have had to backtrack on its "woke" marketing if it weren't for the scandal that arose out of Mulvaney. That's something I tried to include through the "especially" part of the second sentence.

Neutrality doesn't mean invalidating something unless it's a common fact, and even then, for the most commonly accepted truths outside of the natural sciences, we use phrasing such as "almost universally regarded as", such as the leader of the Third Reich (and with that I have fulfilled Godwin’s law). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that the phrasing suggests it's entirely false or a fringe theory, but I'll explain more on that in a moment. The first sentence states that they companies were affected by the boycotts, even if the results were not conclusively from the slogan. I also disagree with the Barbie statement since it merely asserts that it has challenged it, not that it disprove it. I still think it should be fairly concise, however.

I wouldn't say it's clearly had success in certain markets. Even Bud Light. Experts have not attributed the loss to boycotts, citing Nike as an example where they outwardly failed. A similar situation has applied to Target.

But if the phrasing does suggest that it's false...well, that's because it kind of is. To the best of my knowledge, no major reliable source has outwardly described the phrasing as accurate, even in the case of Bud Light and Target. Personally, I see it as a nonsensical slogan that can be projected to any shortcoming of a major industry or business, regardless of any other circumstance or factual context that could explain the loss. When that industry does well, then they don't see that. Personal stuff aside, experts seem to lean more towards that there are just simply better explanations for these losses rather than the conservative boycotts.

I'm also not really big on including Bud Light's parent company in the lede. While it is true that AB InBev is the parent company, most of the sources only refer to Bud Light for the situation.

That said, here could be one potential rewrite:

Conservatives boycotted Bud Light, Target, and The Walt Disney Company. Bud Light and Target experienced a loss in sales and stock value drops, while Disney loss subscribers to its streaming platform, Disney+. However, experts have explained these losses as stemming from other causes, such as the company's response to the boycotts. Movies said to be "woke" have been followed by financial success; Greta Gerwig's 2023 movie Barbie is noted for challenging the slogan's validity. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that's an okay idea, but I do feel that the inclusion of Bud Light as a link over AB InBev could pose potential harm since Bud Light presently redirects to Anheuser-Busch brands. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That, however was already discussed a while ago when the boycott page was moved from AB boycott to Bud light boycott as it is more WP:SPECIFIC WP:COMMONNAME - see the Talk:2023 Bud Light boycott page for reference, so we should follow the same here. Raladic (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You are still ignoring MOS:CLAIM which listed "explain" as one of the words that may introduce bias. What is wrong with simply using "said"? If you want to ignore guidelines (and you haven't fixed the issue with "claimed" mentioned before), no amount of tinkering with the wording will help. You quoted earlier from the BBC about what the experts said, but ignore a number of things also in that article e.g. similar boycotts had had "devastating" financial impacts on US companies. and 67% of Americans say their purchases are affected by a brand's stance, while 42% say they have stopped shopping with a particular brand because of its position on an issue. More than one-third of respondents say they pay attention to a firm's views on social issues. It gives a different perspective on the spin you are trying to put on the article focusing on company that failed because they tried to scale back on "woke". The assertion about movies said to be "woke" being successful is also false, since you can have different examples that say the opposite, [2][3][4]. And again, I have not read any RS articles that define "woke" or "go woke go broke" ever mention Covid (and the Rolling Stone article doesn't bother defining it), remove that or explain it more clearly it is an unusual use, or what's written there can be considered OR. Hzh (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, there are a few of things on the BBC source. One, we already mentioned that there were sales drops and stock drops at various points. Why should we bring it up again with even more vague terminology such as "devastating"? It's better to use the more specific sources that actually state what the impact actually was. Then, the experts in the article indicated that it could be temporary. Finally, I guess we could include the poll? I'm not sure where it would fit best, but it's also vague and almost seemingly trivial without more information.

Washington Times...New York Post...Sportskeeda...The WT barely passes for reliability, and in a topic like this, they shouldn't be used except for the least controversial claims. They are an opinionated source, unlike the ones that you have been stating are. That is, The Rolling Stone isn't.

The New York Post is unreliable and honestly we shouldn't use it at all, especially in a topic like this. The same goes for Sportskeeda. So, no, there aren't reliable sources that say the opposite. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to argue about RS, note that Rolling Stone is considered an unreliable source for sensitive societal issue (which this could count as one) - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and even if you consider this just a culture article (which is unreasonable since this is a contentious topic), its opinion pieces should not be used without attribution. I expect you to rewrite or remove the paragraph based on Rolling Stone and remove the Covid claim in the lede since there is no source that define it that way. Also Newsweek content needed to be assess individually, and there is no obvious clear consensus on Washington Post, so don't assert something as non-RS without proper assessment. The WP article you used mentioned films like The Eternals that flopped, and there are article that said that films like Elemental being too "woke" to be a concern - [5]. Pretty sure if you look into the films individually you'd find more sources. I'm not sure how "devastating" could be interested any way other than very bad, but whichever way you see it, the BBC article cannot support the spin you are giving. There are still the other issues that you have refused to address. Hzh (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to consider removing the Rolling Stone source, then that's up to discussion. I wasn't the one who added it to begin with. However, whoever did add it did provide the attribution. NY Post and Sportskeeda probably shouldn't be used anywhere. I'm still not sold on the WT and it's WP:RSP still doesn't really do any justice. I did assess it, as have numerous other users. If the Rolling Stone shouldn't be used for this topic, then I don't see how the WT is really that much better since it's going to be a controversial political topic.

The Eternals doesn't mention anything about wokeness in the article, just that it didn't do well. The Forbes article it links also didn't mention it. So I don't think that's applicable. I'm also not sure if this Reuters article is either, since it says that the "woke" aspect could be a barrier in the box office...except the movie is already out. If you have any contemporary review of it that mentions it, then that would be one thing.

It isn't about interpreting the meaning of "devastating". I mean that it is vague compared to the actual numbers that are supplied in the article. For instance, we have numbers on subscriber loss, stock value loss, and sales drops with hard numbers attached to them. "Devastating", when compared to these numbers, is vague. I think it's better to stick to the numbers that we have. The article was used to provide the alternate explanation in context of the situation. So... Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to discuss when Rolling Stone is explicitly stated as unreliable for sensitive societal issue. The point has been that this article is selective in the examples used, and use the stated examples are the only real one when that is far from true. The fact is that right-wing press/media has criticised many of the films as "woke" and it is immediately skewed if you remove those sources that made the accusation only use sources that defended the films. Note also the accusation of "woke" is an opinion, it is possible to use sources if you clearly state it as opinion (for example it suggests that you used in-text attribution for opinion for sites like Fox News). You argued for certain sources to be used because it is the fact that is important, the same could be argue for films that failed. A statement like Movies said to be "woke"... is not acceptable because it suggests that this is true for all films said to be "woke", when you should say "Some movies ...". Hzh (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the New York Post is unreliable when using it for attributed opinions, or stating an opinion voiced by the right, if such opinion is vetted by other sources or corrected. Sportskeeda, though, does seem like a BS website to me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

New York Post is considered unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so it should not be used, attributed or not, especially for politics related, which this article is. Raladic (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Counterexamples

The section named “Counterexamples” does not appear to contain any counterexamples or is misnamed. Rather it contains examples of wokeness that succeed because of or in spite of conservative calls for action. Instead, counterexamples would be examples of boycotts (theycotts?) by left leaning segments of products or media for endorsements of right-wing ideas, Chick-fil-A for example. 67.86.136.57 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be given as "Claimed counterexamples". I guess counterexamples can mean something that illustrates "Go woke, won't go broke", or "don't go woke, won't go broke", or maybe even "don't go woke, go broke". Hzh (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A counterexample by its nature would only need to challenge or refute the validity of the phrase in some form. Since, Barbie was a success, for example, it refuted the claim against the movie that since it was woke, it would therefore go broke. This has been shown to be false. Therefore, it is a counterexample. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The use of "counterexamples" in this article exemplifies the problem with this article (including the lede), which is to construct a narrative out of opinions and state them as facts to discredit the "go woke, go broke" statement. What's being done here is essentially OR (using one specific type of counterexamples). Adding "claimed" to "counterexamples" only partly solved the issue. It should be noted that many sources given in the article are opinions, and per WP:RSOPINION, they are not reliable for statements asserted as fact, and those statements need to be attributed. There is essentially no RS for what many statements asserted as fact in this article. The article really needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral manner. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Get Woke - go Broke" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Get Woke - go Broke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13 § Get Woke - go Broke until a consensus is reached. Qwerfjkltalk 15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede and other problems in article

This is just a load of original research. Note the sentence that mentioned Disney, Target and Bud Light, but the source is really specifically about Bud Light, and it doesn't explain Disney and Target. Yet the following sentence say "these losses" as if it applies to them. It doesn't. Note that there is nothing in the article that explains Target, and nothing in the sources that talk about conservatives who falsely claimed that the company was marketing sexually-themed products to minors. Why keep unsourced information in there? A different explanation was given for Disney, there is nothing that suggests that Disney "flip-flopped", so the BBC explanation doesn't apply to it. The "experts" specifically comes from the BBC article dealing with Bud Light, so what makes the explanation by someone writing for The Mary Sue something from an expert? That again is OR. Don't add so much that is essentially OR, suggesting that it is something generally applicable when it deals with specific cases. Hzh (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

At least Raladic can now acknowledge that what's written in the Target section is an unsourced false claim (ironically in a sentence about people making false claim). But nominating the article for deletion because someone else is trying to make it neutral and accurate takes this to a different level. Hzh (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about? Whoever wrote the sentence paraphrased it (badly) from the main article, I have edited it with the wording from the main article, as well as adding the reference (from the linked main article) to RS that backs that the claim by conservatives was false.

Please refrain from throwing around accusations. You know very well that I have tried to improve the article multiple time to address the undue weight and as you can see yourself from the Afd, others are agreeing as well that the content could be merged with other articles that already cover the issue without needing this Standalone article that is just an endless list of back and forths claimed examples. Raladic (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Paraphrase badly? Anyone reading the sentence would think it's about things like erotic costumes or sex toys being sold to minors. There is a big problem if you can't understand the huge difference in meaning (not to mention the difference between something that's sexual and something that's about gender). People in the AfD are telling you that your rationale for AfD is wrong. (My argument has always been that it needs to be completely rewritten. The topic is significant enough as a stand-alone article.) Hzh (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I should also say that it was you who were throwing accusations around, like WP:AGENDA, advancing WP:POV and not reading sources - [6]. The fact that you were reverting my attempts to remove egregious unsourced false statement in the article tells us that the problem lies not with me. Apparently it's fine to include anything that attacks the idea of "go woke, go broke" even if the statement is false. Hzh (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this before, but the "experts" comes from language used in the BBC article. The article also is not solely limited to Bud Light. Nobody is making mention about what makes the writer of the Mary Sue an expert.

"Bud Light, made by Anheuser-Busch, is now one of the latest US companies caught up in America's culture wars, joining a long list that has included Disney, the National Football League, Nike, Target and fast-food chain Chick-fil-A." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That person was contrasting the reaction of Bud Light vs Nike. What he said doesn't really apply to Disney. (Disney did in fact signal that it intends to "quiet the noise" on culture wars a couple of weeks ago, but that's months after the BBC article was written.) You might also question why the opinion of The Mary Sue is given such prominence, and it is implicitly suggested that the writer of The Mary Sue is an expert in the lede. The article and its lede still read like an attempt to skew the narrative to the idea of "get woke go broke" is false rather than a neutral description. Hzh (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue article needed to be removed since it is just a rant by a writer in website that cannot be considered RS. It cannot be used as a source for fact, there are other RS sources that could be used and that part should be rewritten. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Marvels and Disney edits

The information added seems constructive to a discussion on whether social activism is financially beneficial to these brands. ShawMuldoon (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is WP:OR in the form of WP:SYNTH - nowhere in your cited references is go woke, go broke mentioned. Please familiarize yourself with the above linked policies before adding content again. Raladic (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for citing an actual rule this time. ShawMuldoon (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a revised version of the Marvels section again, but this time with a new source (Forbes) explicitly mentioning the anti-woke backlash, "go woke, go broke," and the quote previously reported in the New York Times article. ShawMuldoon (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's a Forbes Contributor, please note that per WP:RSP, these are generally unreliable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the article that you referenced also pointed out contra points, which you omitted - please note that this is counter to another wikipedia policy - neutral point of view - so please ensure not to add WP:UNDUE weight to either side of an argument and report a neutral point, which in this case includes the refutation that woke backlash was to blame for the movies failure.

I've edited the article to that effect. Raladic (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just checked. Forbes Staff. ShawMuldoon (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If a contributor, it would still be usable but should be attributed like any other opinion piece. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This article was written by the Forbes Staff reporter. Per WP:RSP, "Forbes articles written by Forbes staff and not Senior Contributors or Contributors are reliable." ShawMuldoon (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your last post. I didn't know contributors could be used as long as they are identified as opinion pieces.ShawMuldoon (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Research?

Has anyone actually reasearched whether this alleged phenomenon actually happens? The anecdotes generally seem to relate to huge corporation that generally base their decision making entirely on economic grounds, and all seem to be doing very well in spite of right-wing opposition to their policies.

Does research like this actually mean it could possible that this assertion is not just untrue, but actually works in reverse, with embracing a progressive agenda actually being good for business? — The Anome (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. A search for "woke boycott profits" finds the following as the first five hits:

• https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/woke-companies-broke-profits-1234710724/
• https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etfs/sp500-blacklisted-woke-companies-gain-832-billion-during-boycotts/
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65918155
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/08/31/conservative-brands-including-beer-chocolate-razors-and-more-are-trying-to-profit-on-anti-woke-backlash/?sh=472427a343ff
• https://www.vox.com/money/23851108/bud-light-target-boycott-success-trans-issues-woke-capitalism

I've not made any effort to cherry-pick any of these. Overall, I get the feeling that "anti-woke" boycotts are generally ineffective, as also generally are attempts to capitalise on them by right-wing "anti-woke" business strategies. There must be some academic analysis out there trying to put all this together. — The Anome (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Since starting this article, and especially after the failed AfD, the way that I've seen it is that it's somewhat effective, but not very considerably. These boycotts seem to work mostly as of a response from the company. If a firm doubles down on its commitment to social justice, most notably to me Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream (ref), it tends to actually gain more. If you flip flop though, like Bud Light, you lose your top spot as the best selling beer in America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is true. Or, at least that's what the BBC article says, and I have no reason to doubt what they say, since the slogan is fairly silly. In cases where that doesn't apply, however, like in the Disney+ sphere, it's usually due to other reasons. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Examplefarm - "Other Uses"

I didn't see any "use" verified in the Victoria's Secret section, so removed it. Is anyone checking? What's the inclusion criteria here? --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

When I was writing the article, I just went on the examples covered by the original BBC articles used to source it. Might be useful to adopt a standard InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)