Talk:Internalized oppression/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expand?

Someone should help to expand this page.

Examples

It needs a few examples too Towsonu2003 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I wish to add a category on the page describing the involvement of Youtuber h3h3productions in popularizing the term. It will be titled "Popularization of the Term from the Internet." Ethan Kelin is a very relevant figure to this topic often being cited as "the face of internalized oppression." The category will not disrupt the page, and it will be added at the bottom of the page. It will also prevent other editors from disrupting the page with pictures of Ethan Klein just for comedy. Thank you. NessThePSIKid (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The reason why the page was protected in the first place was because IPs kept adding defamatory remarks about Ethan. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

But I do not intend to add "defamatory remarks."

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Who's concerns are being violated here? I don't see how adding this section would be vandalism. NessThePSIKid (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not change the template again. You have been told to gain consensus before adding the material again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How am I supposed to gain consensus without editing or discussion? You seem to be contradicting yourself. NessThePSIKid (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You gain consensus by discussing it on the talk page. The template is used to make edit request on the page when consensus has been reached. Do not add it again until consensus has been reached. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:EDITREQ. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I am discussing it on the talk page, with you, right now. Second, I added a discussion section below so that maybe you'll stop pestering me and actually tell me what you take issue with. NessThePSIKid (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017; Appeal

I strongly insist that we add a section explaining the popularization of the term by the internet. Yes, it will contain references to h3h3productions, but it will cite them objectively without any comedic intentions. The reason for this is twofold, the first being that the terms used deserve context and the second being to prevent further vandalism (as most will view adding extra images of Ethan Klein unnecessary). Please consider. Note: a ten-second google search will tell you that "Internalized Oppression" was clearly made mainstream by internet memes, but here's the video where Ethan first talked about it (see citation). NessThePSIKid (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I ran a Google ngrams search for "internalized oppression" among Google's corpus of books in English from 1960. Their database cuts out after 2008, but it shows that, up till then, the relative frequency of use of the term peaked in the Google-indexed literature in 1998, somewhat before the existence of YouTube.

Also, a Google search for "ethan klein" "internalized oppression" yields 120 hits, leaning toward such compelling sources as Pinterest, Instagram, Twitter, TrendTwitter, Tweetiz, Imgur, blogs, advertisements for t-shirts, a web server identified solely as "199.231.190.93", and a page with the title "Wholesale ethane from China ethane Wholesalers". A search for h3h3productions "internalized oppression" -"ethan klein" (with Ethan Klein excluded to prevent double-counting) yields 91 additional hits of comparable quality.

I feel confident that this person does not merit mention in the article. I even strongly insist on it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you all so strongly against putting Ethan on this page?

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

See above for the apparent reasons why his degree of relevance to the topic is minute. Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem minute to me. People seem to think (at least) that Ethan is relevant. NessThePSIKid (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just demonstrated that the evidence indicates otherwise. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Adding section on the popularization of the term

I made the above request and was told that I needed to gain consensus through discussion. So please, give me your concerns below and we may try to reach a compromise. NessThePSIKid (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You need a reliable, secondary source that supports the statements you are wanting to make. See WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. His YouTube video does not qualify as either. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you expect a scholarly article on the popularization of social-justice based terms in social media? I'm afraid that well isn't just dry, it doesn't exist! NessThePSIKid (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a scholarly article, but it does have to be reliable. If you cannot find that information, then you will not be able to add it to the article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It ought to be substantially more than one source, or else we are paying WP:UNDUE attention. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it would also be considered a WP:BLPVIO on anyone else's page without substantial sourcing. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I have found no evidence that either this person or this YouTube channel are discussed in reliable sources in connection with internalized oppression. It may be that some fans and so forth are yakking about the connection, but that doesn't concern us until reliable sources take note of this yakking, or else begin discussing the connection themselves. Largoplazo (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I was brought to this discussion by the h3h3 video as well, as I am a large fan of his style of comedy. However, I am in agreement with Largoplazo and Kryik.

Internalized oppression, although being the subject of psychology and sociology, has become a political topic highlighted by Klein's video. Political biases tend to inspire the rejection or ignorance of valid research and motivate the use of original research or opinion. As Largoplazo stated, Wikipedia is not a place for political debate or opinion. Entries in Wikipedia are based on research that is conducted by and reviewed by experts in the field. Needless to say, Ethan and Hila Klein are not experts in either psychology or sociology, so the claims they make will not land on any page pertaining to psychology and/or sociology.

It needs to be said how easy it is to misinterpret Klein's video. It is very easy to fall into a trap of generalizing the validity of all claims about internalized oppression based off of the few who have misused the term. In my opinion, it is likely that a great deal of people who finished watching Klein's video developed sweeping attitudes towards claims about internalized oppression. Allow me to make it abundantly clear that these opinions will not change this article in any way, shape, or form.

As a side note, including references or links to pages which describe rules such as "consensus" might help to clear up any miscommunication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Johnnmillerr (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I nominated this for semiprotect because of the following reasons:

1. The page is a mess not being in prose format and the h3h3 stuff has no citations of any kind per Wikipedia:Citing sources
2. Not only that it does not provide any context or relations to the article at all just a picture thumbnail with a tag listing "this guy popularize the term"

Don't really have any opinions on the content but the page was (and still is) very shitty and lots of people were spamming the picture without providing any content made it look like a spamming campaign--Cs california (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

picture should be changed back to h3h3 i believe he really explained what internalized oppression was at a first glance thank you for your time Tkrent132 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: You're asking for the article to carry a photo of an arbitrary person whose only connection to the topic is that he, like millions of others, has talked about it. See the discussion above: there's no consensus to include this in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Self-hating Jews

The so-called "self hating jews" are a perfect example of internalized oppression, are they not? --KpoT (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No more "perfect" than self-hating anybody. Note that this talk page is for collaborating on this article, not for side discussions about its topic. Largoplazo (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well there's not a mention of self-hating jews for exmaple in this article on internalized oppression--KpoT (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also no specific mention of self-hating members of any of thousands of other ethnic groups. So? Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Racism, homophobia, sexism, all are mentioned but not jewish related.--KpoT (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To the extent that anti-Semitism is based on treating Jews as a race or ethnic category, it falls under racism. Beyond that, the counterpart to race is religion, not Judaism. Largoplazo (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just noticed that anti-Semitism is mentioned in the article as a source of internalized oppression. I'd remove it as redundant but it's part of a quotation (which also mentions racism and religious oppression). Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Directions for Reorganization and Expansion

Here's a partial proposal for this page:

New Outline:

• Introduction: Internalized Oppressor / Internalized Oppression is a concept in sociology, etc. Quote Paulo Freire? / give an example.
• Expanded definition of the concept: cultural values and norms that are "internalized." Define and find examples of how this happens.
• History of the concept & approaches from different fields (i.e. introjected value system)
• Then go into the subcategories, causes, and other subheadings currently listed on the article
• Break "overcoming internalized oppression" out into a separate category; present different approaches (Freireian, Rogerian, Rosenbergian if applicable, in addition to what has already been written.)
• Expand or revise the "other theorists" section? (maybe include Audrey Lorde, Freire (Pedagogy of The Oppressed), Rogers (Learning to Be Free)?

• Include a "cultural references" section? The Internalized Oppressor figures heavily in one season of the T.V. show The Man in the High Castle.

I will flesh this outline out as I do more research; the page on Internalized Racism is a nicely structured inspiration.

Hmswaffles (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems within the article

•The article states indirectly that an "oppressed group" member should be inclined towards his own group. •The article first describes the theory, then by the middle of the article stops treating it as a theory but endorses the theory. 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:5E6:7536:DB45:82E6 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)