Talk:Politics of resentment

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Grievance politics was copied or moved into Grievance politics with this edit on 3 January 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Hooker, Juliet (2017). "Black Protest / White Grievance: On the Problem of White Political Imaginations Not Shaped by Loss". South Atlantic Quarterly. 116 (3): 483–504. doi:10.1215/00382876-3961450. ISSN 1527-8026.

Relevant origin discussion

Plopping here for the record: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Grievance_politics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 41 § Grievance_politics Mathglot (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grievance politics

See Draft:Grievance politics for more material and sources, and a possible merge candidate. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year after it was created, this article remains a two-sentence stub. @Buidhe, Arjayay, and Firefangledfeathers: is anyone available to look into a possible merge of any of the content from the Draft into this article? There's some content in the Draft that could probably just be copied over, along with their refs, and the rest of it is more like bullet points of possible subtopics, along with some more references, and that could be used as a pointer for further expansion.

I made it a bit easier to modify content here and to reuse existing refs, by moving the wall of refs from the lead sentence to named LDRs in the References section, freeing up the wikicode in the lead sentence. The resulting list of two {{R}}'s containing 16 ref names can still be embedded in a single {{refn}} if desired. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but some of the stuff in the draft does not seem relevant. Microagression has its own article and microagression related content should go there. Culture war is not necessarily a form of grievance politics although it can be. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Near-complete absence of any groups not central to current “liberal” political views

“ Jason Manning and Bradley Campbell draw on the work of sociologist Donald Black on conflict and on cross-cultural studies of conflict and morality to argue that the contemporary culture wars resemble tactics described by scholars in which an aggrieved party or group seeks the support of third parties. They argue that grievance-based conflicts have led to large-scale moral change in which an emergent victimhood culture is clashing with and replacing older honor and dignity cultures. Political commentator E. J. Dionne has written that culture war is an electoral technique to exploit differences and grievances, remarking that the real cultural division is "between those who want to have a culture war and those who don't."”

This is a really nice philosophical description of a concept on a general level that does not sound like it has some kind of political leaning. But the article itself doesn’t include almost any social groups apart from those that are commonly associated with “liberal” politics: “whites”, bad men, and any type of opposition to Islam or “LGBTQ”. I thought the article on a politics of resentment and/or grievance, of being embroiled in a self-concept of needing reparations due to a past history one sees oneself as affiliated with, was going to mention a lot of other social groups. The article’s suspiciously selective focus seems likely to not be accidental. 78.76.89.147 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and narrative-based writing style sabotages article quality

In its current state, this article would be better if deleted. There is hardly any substance to this article aside from the author's narrative. I am seeing uncited and biased narratives in this article being presented over facts.

For example:

"white others have worked at tightening election regulations in order to make it more difficult for members of ethnic minorities to vote, leading to opposing protests, sometimes clashing, between mostly white groups favoring restrictions on immigration and minorities, and by minority groups seeking to hold on to their rights. This came to a head during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign."

There is no elaboration as to the reasoning of the "others", what election regulations are being tightened aside from those that make things more "difficult", or what actions are being taken by the minorities who are trying to "hold on to" their rights.

The author clearly had a certain narrative in mind when they decide to capstone things with an unsubstantiated appeal to Donald Trump's campaign.

There needs to be major improvements to the substance and balanced discussion of relevant facts for this article to be Wikipedia-worthy.

2603:9001:5402:F6F7:211D:558B:C883:19B3 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. The style is not fitting and the content is patchy. Worthy topic but current article should be deleted. 49.224.230.150 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]