Talk:It's okay to be white
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the It's okay to be white article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about It's okay to be white. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about It's okay to be white at the Reference desk. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Source for alt-right connection[edit]
My edit was reverted, with the summary
- Rv WP:OR analysis, "some regard it as" MOS:AWW
Taking the second critique first, I couldn't find any reliable source branding IOTBW as alt-right. Not that I doubt this for a moment, but I'd like to be able to provide an attribution. Who has said it's an alt right slogan? I'm guessing the ADL, or The Manitoban (a Canadian student newspaper). Or is it simply common knowledge? (We don't have to provide a source for the view that the earth is "regarded as spherical" every time we bring up its shape: that really is common knowledge.)
I also wrote, "... condemned as racist on the grounds that it really means it is preferable to be white, which smacks of white supremacy." Well, if that's not the reason, what is?
- Aren't critics condemning the slogan as racist?
- Don't they regard it as a code phrase, slyly promoting white supremacy?
Okay, maybe it's premature to put it in the lede; if so, please help me flesh it out in the body. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The second part is just straightforward WP:OR; if sources describe it as alt-right or white supremacist messaging or whatever, then we have to, too. We can't just speculate as to why because you're not convinced. And of course "some regard it as" is WP:WEASEL phrasing. But we could plausibly call it a white supremacist slogan. Brooks (in the external links) covers its usage as a slogan by alt-right figures but first and foremost describes it as
white supremacist messaging
. Sengul describes it asdesigned by online white supremacist groups
, asa key example of what Hermansson et al. (2020, p. 1) refer to as digital hate culture associated with the alternative right (alt-right)
. So I wouldn't omit the connection to the alt-right entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Origin of the phrase[edit]
- White supremacists have used the phrase since at least the early 2000s, said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. [1]
Perhaps the term white supremacist is more precise than alt-right, which our own article admits, "... is ill-defined and has been used in different ways by academics, journalists, media commentators, and alt-right members themselves."
I'm planning to change the first sentence to say
- a slogan used to promote white supremacy ...
or
- a white supremacist slogan ...
Okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per above, I'd tend to agree that sourcing emphasizes the fact that it's a white supremacist slogan more than it being an alt-right one, so that should probably be the descriptor in the first sentence of the lead; but I do think we should mention the connection the alt-right somewhere in the article, since the sources also discuss that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
History and larger context[edit]
I'm getting a sense that the slogan IOTBW did not originate in the trolling campaign that is currently the major focus of the article. So I have two proposals:
- Show when and where the slogan has been used, prior to 2017
- Describe the larger context of the slogan, while also explaining the poster campaign.
- It may have been to stir up anti-black prejudice (if the trolls were white supremacists)
- It may have been just make a fuss, like adolescents who abuse their freedom of speech to say or post the most outrageous things they can think of, on the grounds that they are "merely" asserting their rights
Google gave me a follow-up poll (which seems legitimate), indicating that -- no surprise! -- the wording of the Rasmussen poll question was significant. I've read elsewhere that variations of 10 to 30 percentage points are common, depending on how you load the questions.
- Extreme example: "Do you want to save the planet?" vs. "Do you want to let energy companies pollute the air?"
Cloud Research poll:
I'm not getting much traction here in comments. Does that mean I have carte blanche to make all my suggested edits? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the poll itself is meaningfully usable as a source, especially considering that it postdates the trolling campaign. Most secondary coverage that I'm aware of mostly framed it in the context of the trolling campaign and what Rasmussen's intent was. And you haven't presented any other sources so... no, I'd oppose everything you described here. If you want to argue there were significant non-trolling uses you would need very significant WP:SECONDARY coverage, which I'm skeptical actually exists because I suspect the "sense" you're getting is probably wrong. Even if you could find one or two examples of usage, that wouldn't shift the bulk of coverage - to rewrite the article the way you want, you would need truly overwhelming secondary coverage discussing the term with no reference to the trolling campaign, or significant coverage that overtly describes the existence of it as a non-trolling term in ways that make it clear that that is the main topic. Neither are in evidence at all in any of the searches I've done - coverage at all levels is pretty much 100% about the trolling campaign, so that's what our article ought to be, too. More generally, most of your proposals above are pretty light on sources, too. The article is fairly well-sourced and the sources are pretty clear on the term's origin, how it was used, and by who, so you really need to actually find sources for alternative formulations if you want to suggest major changes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aquillion, for your thoughtful and detailed comments. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.
- I'm also glad that I waited for feedback before -- instead of? -- tackling all the changes myself.
- I like the idea of attributing opinions such as "It's considered by XYZ to be an alt-right slogan" or "QRS calls it a white supremacist slogan."
- I still think we ought to distinguish the trolling campaign -- which used the slogan -- to the controversy over whether (a) being white is okay in the same sense that 'black is beautiful' or (b) any praise of whiteness is racist.
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Start-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- Start-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Start-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Start-Class Higher education articles
- WikiProject Higher education articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Start-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- Start-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- Start-Class Linguistics articles
- Low-importance Linguistics articles
- Start-Class Theoretical Linguistics articles
- Theoretical Linguistics Task Force articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles