Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetyism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Coddling of the American Mind. I found the nominator's statement and evaluation of sources to be very persuasive and reflects not only Wikipedia policy but also the rough consensus of participants. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safetyism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Safetyism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEO. "Safetyism" is a term coined by the authors of a 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind by two free speech advocates (Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt) and their co-researcher Pamela Paresky. It is a social hypothesis that a certain mindset is the cause of then-recent American student campus behaviour that the authors find unsatisfactory. That this is actually the primary motivator of this behaviour, that this behaviour is in any way recent, or that the behaviour is universally regarded as unsatisfactory is disputed by some.

No dictionaries contain a definition. Onelook, Merriam-webster, Macmillan, Oxford Learners Dictionaries, The American Heritage Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, Cambridge. I see that Collins Dictionary noted that the word was proposed to them in 2020 but remains under review. A google search of the BBC "safetyism site:bbc.co.uk" also finds nothing.

Having the term as an article has two consequences. As WP:NOTNEO notes, it can "increase usage of the term" by giving it a validity undeserved by sources. As currently written, the article is entirely uncritical, writing about this proposed explanation of student behaviour as though it is an established concept in social psychology. And we comment on this concept as though this is a universal and timeless failing of human behaviour rather than a recent concept proposed and promoted by two free speech advocates complaining that and how their students keep protesting about stuff. Currently the article on this term is longer than our article on the whole book, and its main source is an academic paper that itself promotes a neologism (ideacide) and only briefly mentions safetyism among three "dynamics". Most of the relatively small number of sources using the word are political opinion pieces that are themselves promoting free speech, citing the book or its authors, or using the word as a weapon against whatever kind of activism they dislike.

Compared with Truthiness, which is a similar social neologism but swiftly became word-of-the-year and is highly used and discussed. Within social science, this "safetyism" is a fringe concept lacking WP:WEIGHT. Even within the book, The Coddling of the American Mind, "safetyism" is a minority of the work. Another comparator would be "Autistic enterocolitis" a term coined by Andrew Wakefield as a proposed explanation of autism. We do not have an article on that because it is also a fringe (and discredited) concept in medical science, though we do have Lancet MMR autism fraud that discusses it.

That it is disputed that this word "safetyism" is even a "thing" and whether it has any significant currency outside of American university politics c2018 means it is best discussed briefly in the context of our article on this book on American university politics c2018. I suggest that "Safetyism" be discussed with appropriate, relatively brief, weight in the book article, and safetyism be turned into a redirect. -- Colin°Talk 14:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:OwenX, I'm not nearly as familiar with AfD as you. But there can't be any sources "from over a decade ago" because it was only coined in 2018, five, nearly six years ago.
    When I read WP:NOTNEO it tells me to watch out for the difference between sources using a term than ones that are actually about the term. We have some opinion-piece advocacy sources where people have picked up that word and used it. We have some sources commenting on the book and its fallout. But the two sources about the term Safetyism Was Never Real and Safetyism Isn’t the Problem both actually argue that it isn't really a thing and that anyone using the term is wrongheaded or trying to fool their readers, not that you'd learn that from the article text.
    As a tertiary encyclopaedic source and for a subject worthy of its own article, what I'd expect is for us to be citing some secondary sources explicitly on "Safetyism" as a concept in modern social psychology. That after five, nearly six years, we'd find dictionary definitions, book chapters, books even, all explaining to students what this accepted academic term is and means. We can't. Because it isn't an accepted academic term. It is a fringe idea by two guys who wrote a book. That this neologism is used by some free speech advocates doesn't seem to meet the requirement at WP:NOTNEO. -- Colin°Talk 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake! Google Scholar incorrectly reports the term as being used in J.S. Beck's 2011 Clinical textbook of addictive disorders. Thanks for prompting me to dig deeper. Changing to Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is being discussed in journals and the sourcing seems adequate. 'With the advent of smartphones, parents' surveillance adds to the “culture of safetyism” that predominates on college campuses...' [1], 'Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' [2], '...a “national wave of adolescent anxiety and depression”; overprotective parents caught up in “safetyism”; campus officials who encourage dependency...' [3] etc. I am NOT implying that all of these results are independently RS, but they do indicate adoption in limited but persistent use and support the sourcing already in the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing that some sources use the term but the sources you give aren't using it as a real word outside of scare quotes, or using it independently from the book as though this was a concept with wide acceptance.
    1. The first article only once mentions “the culture of safetyism” and they do so in scare quotes while citing the "The Coddling of the American Mind". That's not evidence they think this is a term in modern social psychology, only that they wish to quote some other author's work.
    2. The second source also uses the word in scare quotes: 'In The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' Again they are effectively quoting the book, and their article examines its claims with comments from their own experiences. They only use the word twice in their article, both times they are in-text referencing the book/authors and the claims the book/authors made. They are not using the word for themselves as though it was a real word.
    3. The third source is simply a book review of "The Coddling of the American Mind". They use the word "safetyism" in scare quotes, because they also don't actually regard it (yet) as a real word, and are merely stating what the book itself claims in order to pass judgement on the book. -- Colin°Talk 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per analysis of sources by Colin, most of the coverage of the term seems to be related to The Coddling of the American Mind. So a redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind seems most appropriate, unless better sources which discuss it more independently or more in depth can be found. Shapeyness (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A robust critical section should be written using sources to provide balance. Political opportunists will certainly use the concept irresponsibly, even using mean or hateful rhetoric. Haidt & Lukianoff use it rather responsibly, but are transparent about the political dimension of related discussions. -- skakEL 14:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skakkle I see you made some edits to "provide balance" and I certainly felt that as previously written the article was uncritical (see talk page comments). But I'm concerned your changes to the lead are not sourced (nor do they appear to summarise the body). Do you have some sources for the remarks about Safetyism that you added. Without those, it is possible to see that your changes might simply be undone per WP:V. -- Colin°Talk 08:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In voting "Keep", I recommended to the community and anyone interested that robust critical section should be written. I'm sure the community and anyone interested can achieve that.
    My contributions were intended more narrowly. My edits sought "de-nature" the inflammatory frame of the term safetyism and help discover a less controversialized frame to talk about the substance of the topic and the subject matter at hand (university policy, how students really feel, how academics & authors talk about these things, the issues that spark the most trouble in these university contexts, etc). My contributions might not be perfect or complete but I made them in good faith & I am hoping the community and anyone interested can continue to work on this productively together. skakEL 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skakkle, I don't doubt your good faith and intentions and I'm not suggesting you are required to personally fix the article. I generally agree with your additions, but that doesn't mean I've been able to source them. My research suggests the limited sources available on this topic hinder the ability to write an appropriate "robust critical section" with appropriate sources (there is some criticism in sources but they are either dealing with politics or in response to the book). I think this diminishes the weight of a "keep" vote that assumes something is possible that may not be. High quality sources have "better things to do" that attack ideas that never widely took off in the first place, which had a short-lived significance in American politics in 2018, and aren't established concepts. -- Colin°Talk 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Evidence is lacking that this is, you know, a thing. That is, it so far appears not to be a concept that has grown to be bigger than the book while maintaining a coherent definition. We don't need to provide a studiously balanced, critical overview of a topic that isn't encyclopedic to begin with, and keeping such an article around invites synthesis of remarks from everybody who has written something that vaguely sounds like the same idea. The reception of a book can be covered in the article about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: seeing as additional sources might be hard to find, I'd also be happy with a Redirect to the book, as suggested by others. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Some of the sources only mention the term tangentially, some don't mention the term at all, and some only in the context of that book. I fail to see that "safetyism" is notable outside the context of the book. Cortador (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per what XOR'easter said (not a valid reason to delete), and given the many sources already provided and notability shown. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter didn't say anything that would imply keeping the article. Are you sure you're referencing the right editor here? Owen× ☎ 23:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I was referring to his comment just saying "it's just not encyclopedic". It not a valid reason to delete as many sources have been provided, and notability has been shown. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I got this straight: you believe that XOR'easter raised an invalid argument to turn the article into a redirect, so based on that you believe the article should be kept? Are you familiar with the aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Owen× ☎ 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disproveing the multiple reliable sources provided would better make a point then citing random article space pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources that make a case for keeping the article have not been provided, and notability as an independent topic has not been shown. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't make head nor tail of this !vote. Nobody is saying the text isn't encyclopaedic (though I'd argue that some portions of the text aren't supported by the sources, and some of the text, per XOR'easter, falls into the synthesis/original-research trap of using sources that "use" a word in order to talk "about" the word, and some trimming per WEIGHT would be appropriate if relocated) just that it is best located as a section within the book article. It does make me wonder if the editor has responded on the wrong AfD? -- Colin°Talk 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted keep based on the sources provided above and stand-alone notability shown. Simple as that. Any other discussion beyond the hard, concrete sources and notability is just confusion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific. Which of the "many" "sources provided above" meet WP:NOTNEO's requirement that "we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term". Two sources above that I see that talk about the term do so in the context of the book and to dismiss it. Or are you referring to all the dictionary sources, that say "search term not found". It isn't good enough to say "notability has been shown" and wave your hands about on the page. You need to explain how this requirement has been met, with specific sources that meet policy. -- Colin°Talk 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind. A search for sources indicates that "Safetyism" has not been discussed independently of the book. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are additional independent secondary sources where Safetyism is discussed, that collectively validate WP:GNG. I have quoted passages which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Safetyism as a standalone topic. All of the articles are called Safetyism is ___, not Review of The Coddling of the American Mind, demonstrating that the topic is discussed independently of the other article. Lastly, arguing against the merit of a single source does not discredit the merit of the others, as WP:GNG only requires two or more sources, which demonstrate significant coverage, and that are independent (COI-free) of the subject.

  • "Safetyism Was Never Real". Insight Higher Ed. June 4, 2020.
The article states: Launched into the world by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.According to the authors, safetyism, along with other factors such as “screen time,” were causing observable increases in anxiety and depression among young people, as well as leading to protests such as the one over Halloween costumes at Yale, which the authors see as an illiberal assault on the values of the institution. Coddling was published in 2018. I am trying to recognize the description of a generation which is so apparently fragile that they cannot even bear a challenging thought with the one that has been the greatest number of those facing pepper spray, tear gas, beatings and rubber bullets on the streets as they protest systemic injustices in the wake of the recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.
The article states: During the second half of the twentieth century, concentrated efforts were made to make the world safer for children, drivers, and vulnerable people. All fifty states passed safety belt laws. Sharp objects were removed from homes and day care facilities. Toys and playgrounds became softer. It worked. Death rates for children declined steadily. Over the first two decades of the twenty-first century, however, “safety” has broadened to include emotional safety and this broader understanding of safety has become a fundamental value and ideal. Especially on university campuses, young people protest triggers – co
The article states: With the steady decline in organised religion among the British, other beliefs have stepped in to fill the vacuum, guiding us and providing a framework with which to live our lives. The decline of organised religion hasn’t ushered in a world that is rational, logical and rooted in empirical scepticism; our modern materialistic secular world is full of new superstitions, rituals and faith. One of the most visible of these new doctrines, after gaining traction for many decades, blossomed in 2020 - that of safetyism.
The article states: Something is going badly wrong for American teenagers, as we can see in the statistics on depression, anxiety, and suicide. Something is going very wrong on many college campuses, as we can see in the rise in efforts to disinvite or shout down visiting speakers, and in changing norms about speech, including a recent tendency to evaluate speech in terms of safety and danger. This new culture of “safetyism” is bad for students and bad for universities.
The article states: As America debates when and how to reopen, those concerned about the side effects of the lockdown have begun to use the word “safetyism” to characterize what they consider extreme social-distancing measures.
The article was locked to me. It is titled "The rise of Safetyism has entered the courtroom". It is as unrelated as it gets to a book.
The article states: In recent years behaviours on university campuses have created widespread unease. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes. Demands for speakers to be disinvited. Words construed asviolence and liberalism described as ‘white supremacy’. Students walking on eggshells, too scared to speak their minds. Controversial speakers violently rebuked – from conservative provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos to serious sociologists such as Charles Murray, to left-leaning academics such as Bret Weinstein.
The article states: The outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election will reveal whether the feminized, therapeutic culture of the university has become the dominant force in the American psyche. During the last eight months of coronavirus panic, a remarkable number of Americans have deliberately — one might even say, ecstatically — embraced fear over fact. They have shut their ears to the data, available since March, showing how demographically circumscribed the lethal threat from coronavirus infection is: concentrated among the very elderly and those with multiple and serious preexisting health conditions.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Safetyism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing the sources you believe matter. The rule for an article on a novel word for a proposed concept is WP:NEO which requires more than usage of the word in some blogs. The NYU Stern source is actually written by Haidt and Lukianoff so isn't really independent of the book. Many of the other sources are culturally conservative blogs. Theopolis is a evangelical church blog, Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank, Institute of Public Affairs is another conservative think tank. Movementum Magazine is a self published blog. The Insight Higher Ed source is a blog on that site and is actually claiming the concept doesn't exist that writers/speakers are just abusing that neologism for political games. The New York Times is an opinion column about covid lockdown commenting that people are misusing the term to justify their position on that matter.
None of these are reliable sources for anything more than the author's opinion, should that have any weight. What none of these are are journal articles in sociology or linguistics or undergrad or postgrad textbooks or even political books devoted to this topic. Instead some hot headed opinionist has picked up a neologism they recently read in Haidt & Lukianoff's book (which they loved because it is so critical of these lefty social justice warrior students that they hate) and used it to rant about coronavirus lockdowns or about how parents these day are not like when I was growing up and had to go to church each Sunday with polished shoes and a suit and a respectable haircut. It's a bit like you found a bunch of right wing blogs ranting about how wokeism has infected our schools but not the scholarly work on what the term "woke" is and how that term is used and misused today. -- Colin°Talk 10:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safetyism&oldid=1191431429"