Talk:White trash

This entry is a polemic

I am sympathetic to the editor’s intentions, but neither Dorothy Allison’s nor the editor’s anger constitute etymological facts. Dubious (but reassuring) political & psychological motivations behind the use of various related slurs, as well as their relative propensity among various classes and geographical regions, are also presented as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimesvevo (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Everything in this article is supported by a citation from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks in the lead

User:Beyond My Ken seems convinced that the phrase "racist and classist slur" requires quotation marks around it in the lead section, despite objections from multiple editors (see page history). However, his reasoning for it has been inconsistent over time: earlier reverts were explained that, because the exact same four words are found in the (first, now) source used, it would be a copyright violation not to include scare quotes, and later reasoning was because the phrase was decided on by consensus after talk page discussion. As to the earlier reasoning, I find it ridiculous to think that would constitute a copyvio, but leaving it the way it is brings up WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV issues. Attributing the quote to the first source in the lead sentence would bring up WP:DUE issues, and isn't really needed especially with multiple sources now. The statement isn't being made as a description of a point of view; it's stated as a point of fact in Wikipedia's voice based on sources and doesn't need quotations. As for the later reasoning, there doesn't seem to be any policy-based reasoning that wording affirmed by prior discussions requires unmoveable quoation marks/scare quotes; if there is I have definitely never encountered it before. Attempts to go against the previous consensus can follow the normal WP:BRD cycle, and it's possible for consensus to change in the future this way, not so with commanding hidden messages proscribing any change. The quotation marks should be removed. --Equivamp - talk 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The epression is a direct quote, and direct quotes should always be quoted, regardless of their length. Also, a number of other editors have attempted to remove "racist and classist slur" when it was not quoted, and therefore appeared in Wikipedia's voice. Both of these reason justify the quotation marks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If new users are edit warring counter to consensus, they can be reverted, no quoation marks necessary (or desired). Because the statement is being made in Wikipedia's voice (and in the context of how it's presented, it is), it is not being used as a direct quote - if Wikipedia were to describe an event as happening in the house, no quotations marks would be needed there either, even if the source(s) cited also use the specific phrasing if "in the house". --Equivamp - talk 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, editors have tried to change or qualify it even with the quotation marks there, so they're not the magical shield you're treating them as. --Equivamp - talk 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing "magic" about them, it's just better to have them then not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There is simply no way to respond to that. Do you have any policy-based reasoning? Because multiple editors clearly think otherwise, which creates a consensus even if there's one editor EW-ing to keep them. --Equivamp - talk 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please get a WP:consensus here to change the article's status quo before you do so again. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not the WP:STATUSQUO. The status quo is the version without quotation marks. You first added the quotation marks on August 15, which were removed within two days by another editor. A discussion started on the matter (see the relevant section above) which was in favor of removing them, and you responded in a BITE-y, threatening way to stifle discussion and edit warred to get your way. And then you have continued to do so with any editor who removed the senseless quotation marks still, in February. The quotation marks haven't been the status quo at any point, and the fact that you keep changing the supposed reason the marks must stay, still without any basis in policy or at least reality, is very telling. --Equivamp - talk 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

But there is a basis in policy: WP:CONSENSUS: Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals... As I said above, get need to get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you are the editor acting against the consensus of multiple editors, as I have stated. --Equivamp - talk 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that. It is not, however, the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You single-handedly edit warring and stifling discussion on the matter, then insisting that the version of the article only you have shown support for is the status quo does not change the fact that there is a consensus against the inclusion of quotation marks. --Equivamp - talk 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is that consensus? Point me to it please. I see no such discussion on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you remember the status quo, considering you are the editor who added the quotation marks originally. You should also remember the consistent reverts from many editors over many months of your addition, because you were there to revert it back each time. And you should also remember the discussion above about it, which was in favor of removing them but more or less ended when you threatened and bullied a newbie editor. --Equivamp - talk 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the link or diff to a consensus discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Scroll up. --Equivamp - talk 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, it's your contention that a discussion between me, you, an IP who hasn't edited since being flagged for disruptive editing in October, and an obvious sockpuppet constitutes a legitimate consensus discussion? Will, it's my contention that that previous discussion is clearly corrupt and, in fact, does not reach a consensus, because the only legitimate editors involved are you and me.

And here we are again, you and me, and we still don't agree, so there is still no consensus. Of course, WP:Consensus can change, and that's what I'm looking for, some indication that a consensus exists right here and now, at this very moment, not six months ago, to remove the quotation marks from around a direct quote. I'm not seeing it.

Until you can show a consensus, I see no point in belaboring this discussion, so I won't be participating anymore. I will be monitoring the discussion, though, so feel free to continue attempting to build a consensus. If you get one -- a legitimate one that doesn't involve sockpuppets and drive-by IPs -- I'll certainly follow it. However, please do not remove the quotation marks without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I agree with Equivamp's position here, and that it appears that you are in the minority on this issue, Beyond My Ken. Consensus means consensus, not "consensus of people who agree with me." Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

An additional note for Beyond My Ken - as it's clear we disagree and there are substantial disagreements on this issue with other editors as well, I've asked for a 3rd opinion at WP:3O. Hopefully we can work this out. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no need. I see now that there is a consensus for the removal of the quotation marks, so I have removed them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely have to laugh... --Equivamp - talk 23:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don;t know why. I said from the beginning that if there was a consensus I would follow it. Until now, there wasn't one. Get with the program, Equivamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, "now" there's one, sure dude. --Equivamp - talk 00:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, you have no concept of what a consensus is or how it's determined. Oh, well... dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Remaining issues to resolve - racist and quotes on term itself

Equivamp, Beyond My Ken, other interested editors, two more issues to resolve, one on style and one on content. First of all, the term 'white trash', the subject of the article, is given in quotes in its first, bolded use. Why? Not sure if there's a style guideline coming into play there. Second of all, the first sentence refers to the term as a 'racist and classist slur'. While the body of the article has extensive discussion about the classism of the term, there is really no discussion of the term being racist. I don't have an opinion myself on whether the term is or isn't racist, but leads should reflect the body of the article. Unless a well-sourced section regarding the racism of the term 'white trash' is added to the article, I think we should remove 'racist' from the lead. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I put it in quotes to indicate that it's an expression. Another editor had put it in italics, claiming that this was the MoS-approved way of indicating words-as-word. I have no problem with it just being bolded, with no itals or quotes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Done.

The reference immediately after "racist and classist slur" is the source for (what was) a direct quote. It is where "racist" comes from. If I recall correctly, the second ref supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, my concern is that the rest of the article does not contain any discussion of the term being racist. Obviously it's a race-related term, but 'racist' is more specific in nature. The lead should reflect the article, and making an important claim like "this term is racist" without anything to back it up in the article is confusing for readers and generally against our Wiki style. If a section in the body of the article were written or expanded to discuss the term 'white trash' as racist, from multiple reliable sources, than the lead would make sense as is. Otherwise, I think it should be changed. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that we have a reliable source which describes it as being racist. A better solution would be to add discussion about the racist aspects of the term -- which is actually touched on in the "Black popular culture" section, where it is described as being a riposte for the use of "nigger" -- rather then removing it from the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added some material in the body of the article as a beginning of a discussion there of "white trash" being a racist slur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, looks good, thanks for making those improvements. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Still more to do, I'm waiting for access to two journal papers, which I hope will have more material to add. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:IMPARTIAL, we shouldn't describe the term as "racist"/"classist" in Wikipedia's voice. Are white entertainers being "racist" when they jokingly call themselves white trash? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:WORDSASWORDS is the relevant style guideline for the use of italics. For the rest, well, I've lost my interest in improving the lead section of an article which clearly belongs to someone else already. --Equivamp - talk 01:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, WP:STEWARDSHIP. Still not with the program, EV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Very left-wing introduction

The entry is too socialist, defines the term almost entirely from a "class struggle" point of view with, of course, the poor being the good guys.

Also, from my experience, when most people use "white trash", they're not necessarily thinking of destitute people as much they're referring to people who use drugs, are skanky, won't work, and the like. I'm from Tampa, FL, and I've heard that term all my life. It's mainly used to shame whites seen as lacking class, misbehaving, etc.

Now, obviously, a lot of those people will happen to be poor or of lower economic class, but that's not really the point. The "class" aspect of it is more prominent with expressions like "trailer trash".

WikiJoe24 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your personal experiences aren't relevant. If you have information from reliable sources, however, it can be used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond my Ken -- It's not just my experience. That's just the common understanding and use of the term, at least in this day and age. This view of "class disdain" from the respectable middle classes, that's just the interpretation (not to be confused with the more objective "observation") of ivory-tower academics and pundits.

By the way, I just checked that NPR source, and a lot of what I said (that it's whites differentiating themselves from other whites they deem culturally trashy) was mentioned there. Even mentioned Trump as "white trash icon." It's just that whoever wrote this Wiki entry omitted it and preferred to emphasize the class aspect instead.

WikiJoe24 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, "common understanding" is not relevant. Only information which comes from reliable sources can be sued in the article, or any article on Wikipedia. Other information can be removed at will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is this term acceptable

While terms like the n-word arent? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)