This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article suffers from serious WP:NPOV issues, with the entire tone of the article presenting a criticism of the term with very little focus on its history and its use. It fails to maintain an WP:IMPARTIAL tone, and I think a rewrite is warranted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My experience researching the term is that coverage of the term is essentially limited to criticism thereof and the ensuing debate. I'd be very interested in seeing any additional sources you can find that add additional perspectives. I'd also disagree that the article as written comprises criticism of the term: the only actual line of critique in the article is the one attributed to Adolph Reed at the end, the rest is a neutral description of its usage. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I think the problem is that a lot of the article is dedicated to the term itself rather than the concept. Sort of like how we have an article for Fascism and an article for Fascist (insult), this article is more like the latter, which limits it to what amounts to a debate between POVs. It doesn't actually engage with the ideas of class reductionism itself or how the concept developed, just what people think about the actual words. The sources currently in the article could probably expand on these aspects. A few other sources I found:
Unfortunately the additional sources are paywalled for me--based on the sources I have been able to access, I have yet to see any that gives an actual timeline and history of the term's use, but I'd be eager to include its history if it can be found. Based on its abstract, the ASA source you provide looks promising as far as making the case for analyzing race through the terms of class, but I'd hesitate to assume that it provides a description of "the ideology of class reductionism" as it were: it seems like a polemic aimed at sublating the race/class divide in theoretical approaches and may not be a good fit for describing the views of the nebulous groups denounced as class reductionist. Ideally, we'd find RS that place themselves above the fray, but in their absence I'm doubtful of the level of depth we can honestly and neutrally provide as far as analyzing the "ideas of class reductionism". signed, Rosguilltalk 02:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, do you still think there are serious WP:NPOV issues? The article can obviously be expanded, but I'm not convinced that it's accurate to call this an NPOV issue or that a template is appropriate. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the tag is probably imprecise, so I've removed it. I do still think that the structure of the article prevents it from accurately addressing the subject, but like you said, more is needed from the sourcing before that can be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
