Jump to content

Talk:Fourteen Words

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PaulxSA (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 4 November 2018 (→‎Image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


References

As stated before the references to the ADL should be discounted, plus they are broken (the external links) as well as the link to the PDF of "88 Percepts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.234 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The Fourteen Words are a Neo-Nazi slogan which was coined by formerly imprisoned The Order member, David Lane. They state "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children." It is often used as a recruiting tool at places like gun shows and is commonly used as a greeting by fellow Neo-Nazis to affirm ones affiliation with White Pride. It is also often spraypainted or used to deface property in order to mark "turf" in prisons and other urban areas so it is also considered a gang symbol.


Changed from neo-nazi to white nationalist. If someone say 'Future for black children' is he a black neo-nazi ? AlV 09:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I think you're a white neo-nazi or at least a nazi sympathizer.
No, I think he's just enforcing the NPoV. I too hate these people, but the correct term for these racist freaks should be used.
agreed. In normal discourse I'd call them nazis, but for an academic article white nationalist or supremacist should be used. The Ungovernable Force 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to applaud your candid admission of hate. Although I find hate speech deplorable, whether it be from Nazis or Wikipedia editors, it is refreshing to see you so openly acknowledge your own hate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.227.218 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist 14 words?

The Anarchist Fourteen Words is an Anti-nationalist phrase used by Anti-fascists. The slogan was coined by Tony Blackplait, a member of Vennaskond. It states: We must secure the existence of Earth people and a future for all children. It is often used as a greeting to affirm one's affiliation with Anarchism, and is a parody of the 'Fourteen Words' attributed to White Power. Um, I'm an anarchist and I've never heard this, and I sure have never used it as a greeting to affirm my anarchist beliefs. Is there a source for this? I do think it is funny, and I think this is a clever way to insert a pro-anarchist message in a neo-nazi page, but it should be sourced because I'm doubtful of the validity of this. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any trace of their usage on the Internet. -Will Beback 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the guy who coined it was apparently Estonian, so perhaps it's an Estonian phrase translated into English for this article. But I think that's a stretch, as it would be strange to make an Estonian pun on an English phrase and end up with the same number of words in both translations. Google searches for ""Tõnu Trubetsky", "Tonu Trubetsky" and "Tony Blackplait" combined with "fourteen words" turn up zilch. I've removed it for the moment, erring on the side of verifiability, and I'll ask the guy who put it in (RobotF [1]) where he heard it. You'd've thought anything used by anarchists would turn up at least once on Google. --Malthusian (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Anarchist 14 Words are in his book "The Anarchists".--Munn 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've referenced the paragraph. --Malthusian (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

Since we have the phrase's definition, its inventor, its origin and two examples of use, is this really still a stub? --Malthusian (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got the Anarchist section back in, referenced, I'm removing the stub template. I'm not overly familiar with stub usage but it does seem that we've expanded this beyond that point. --Malthusian (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ADL

Why is ADL link here? They are not an authority on anything. They are just promoting racial interests of their own group.

Worse, it's completely biased. They don't seem like a credible, factual, information giver anyway. Their website reads like a tabloid.
Just guessing here but... are you two a couple of nazis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.225 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Nazi but

OK this page needs a rewrite to look less shitty and povved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.211.4 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Order was a Supremacist group?

Was it a supremacist group or a nationalist group? MichiganLake (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is important question raised by MichiganLake. I would tend to call it a "white supremacist group" rather than a "white nationalist group," but I'd like to hear what others have to say. Scotteaux (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Took out the ADL reference

The ADL is obviously a biased source when it comes to this. I'll try and find another reference that's better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.90.59 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of the page..

At the bottom is a box titled 'far right in brtian' but the article is not specific to britain, david lane was amercian according to the article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.49.246 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes

They're formatted badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.78.6 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of See Also section

The Fourteen Words are undeniably connected to the person David Lane, as well as the group The Order and also the article 88 Precepts here on Wikipedia. Yet when an addition is made, there are claims of whitewashing.72.174.104.250 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; and while 2 of those links were already linked in the article (see WP:ALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes), the other two were not, so I left them in. Please understand that as an editor, when I see 10 edits from an anonymous IP, and after I scan 2 or 3 of them I see that they're introducing a non-NPOV, it's just easier to undo all the edits. That may be hasty, but it is what it is. I'd encourage you to register, as it provides numerous benefits and you still remain completely anonymous. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

I don't think this is notable. I've never heard of it before. We should probably just delete it.67.4.236.227 (talk)

Wikipedia does not base its decisions of which articles should exist based on whether you have personally heard of a term or not. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image in question.

I understand you may want to put this image in the article somewhere, but I don't think it is a good idea to have it as the first image that comes up in the article, as it gives a negative image of the phrase. The phrase "14/88" refers to the existence of white people and a future for white children. It is a white nationalist phrase, not a white supremacist phrase. --Macaroniking (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a venue for Nazi apologetics. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it a venue for any political view. Neutral means neutral. The sites about the most abhorrent views are the easiest places to start moving away from neutrality... and that is a dangerous slide toward an openly POV wikipedia. Bzzzing (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "White Supremacist" and "White Nationalist" is only made by white supremacists. Therefore to use the phrase "White Nationalist" promotes a specific POV. -- PaulxSA (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prisoner image

I removed the image of a prisoner with a large amount of tattoos because it was an extremely provocative image that has no direct relation to the topic at hand. Would an article about apples be improved by starting with an image of a prisoner with an apple tattoo? 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if (rather than the fruit) we were writing an article about images of apples being used as part of a niche identity. Apples, of course, aren't used to identify someone as being part of one or more radical groups.
In the present case, "14" (in reference to a racist slogan) is shown clustered with "88" (a code number for "Heil Hitler"), "SKIN HEAD" (referring to groups often associated with racially-motivated violence), swastikas (a symbol prominently used by the Nazis), the insignia of the SS (the group in charge of the Nazis racial genocide), etc. The prisoner white supremacist skinhead murderer proudly displays it with the rest of his collection as he lives out the rest of his sentence.
If apples were used as a symbol by racists and this article was about that use and the murderer included it in his collection of flair, the photo would be great in that article as well. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the word FUN on his chin. I'll post this on the articles for fun and chins. 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the word "fun". It's F(swastika)U(swastika)N(swastika). If we had an article for "fuck you, nigger", that would be an excellent choice as, again, it's another piece of this finely curated collection of racist job stoppers. (Incidentally, if anyone ever starts an article for "job stopper", I have an image suggestion for you.) - SummerPhDv2.0 12:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of people who count themselves as racist, white nationalist, white supremacist or other hate groups, have a tattoo on their face? Linking these two things is unproductive and implants an image in the mind of viewers that all racists are likely to look like the attached image. Racists come from all walks of life, and can look like the most upstanding members of society. Should the article on crime in America have a picture of a black man because black men commit most of the crime in America, capita? I find this discussion extremely problematic. 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 14 words. There's a photograph that illustrates the use of the number 14 alongside other neo-Nazi symbols. Nobody's implying that all neo-Nazis have facial tattoos or whatever you think is going on. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper use of the image - you wouldn't put an image of a nasty car crash on the top of the automobile page. Likewise this image doesn't belong here. Go spread your hatred elsewhere. Editan2018 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an image that more suitably serves to illustrate Fourteen Words & meets the CC0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA licensing requirements as specified by Wikimedia Commons, then by all means upload it to Commons. Then we can have discussion about putting that new image at the top & moving the prisoner image to elsewhere in the article. Otherwise you are just whistling Dixie. Peaceray (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the current image doesn't have that license, but is a "fair use" image. I'm not sure that fair use extends to using it in this article and as of now, there is no specific rationale for that on the file description page. If we're using an non-free image there are perhaps better examples like https://www.discogs.com/Centurion-Fourteen-Words/release/676519. Sjö (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are conflicting tags on the files page. As a U.S. federal government image, it is public domain. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that before. Anyway, ChiveFungi removed the fair use tag so now there's no doubts about the licensing. Sjö (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrocer apostrophes

Sorry Ken but I have to agree with Anrza here; adding apostrophes to make something plural is the kind of thing you expect from greengrocers, not encyclopedias. Since you know a lot about Wikipedia I thought there may be some precedent that you were following, but it looks like you just decided to make a unilateral MOS edit after the fact instead (adding Plurals for numerals and letters are formed by the addition of an apostrophe followed by an "s").

If there is a precedent on WP then I'd like to see it, maybe even reverse it. If not then I'd like to point out that Google ngrams for 1000s vs 1000's or 1960s vs 1960's, to pick a couple of random examples, shows a distinct skew away from using apostrophes. (Click on Search lots of books if the links don't work immediately.) More to the point, I know of no rationale for using an apostrophe to make a plural unless you're a greengrocer who doesn't know any better. Maybe it's because it's way past my bedtime but it seems to me like you're exceeding your perceived authority here, Ken. If I'm mistaken then please forgive the insinuation. Grovel, grovel. nagualdesign 02:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take it back. The New York Times seemed to have changed their style book between the edition I have and the newer one online. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have no "authority" here, except that which may come with 12 years of editing, over 200,000 edits, and the respect of a number of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I used the word perceived. After posting this section I found the discussion, such as it was, on Anrza's talk page. Looking at the timestamps I'm a bit disappointed that you would read Anzra's reply (23:31, 10th December) referring you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Plural and possessive forms, which clearly says, "As always, do not use an apostrophe to form a plural", then elect to edit the MOS (01:03, 11 December) in order to have it your own way. Given your exhaustive contributions to WP:ANI I thought you'd hold yourself to higher standards than that. I hope you've now undone your edit to WP:MOS. nagualdesign 03:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there proof that Alan Berg was really Jewish?

Since Berg on KOA denied that his mother was Jewish, claiming that his father was, unless there is proof that he became a proselyte, I don't think he should simplistically be called Jewish. Michael Cohen (for example) denies that Berg was a Jew. Michael Mark Cohen: The Secret History of America, https://medium.com/the-secret-history-of-america/all-my-terrorists-are-white-92c964f50bf8. See also NNDB Jewish Ancestry, a list of non-Jewish with Jewish ancestry, including Alan Berg. http://www.nndb.com/lists/481/000045346/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacePeace (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are reliable sources, and this article is absolutely not the place to insinuate doubt about someone's identity in this way. Reasonable people (which excludes Nazis and others who follow Lane's nonsense) understand that Jewish identity is not a simple issue, and this isn't even remotely appropriate as a venue to debate it. We reflect sources in proportion to due weight, which means that here, it's perfectly sufficient to just say he was Jewish. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHS on Feb 2018

Here is archive https://web.archive.org/web/20180216011811/https://www.dhs.gov/news-releases/press-releases showing the title the day after, one of five published in the previous day, as I'm unable to access archives of the page itself from then. 06:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is this even listed here? There has never been confirmation of any ill intent by the DHS, and it is patently obvious that not all fourteen-word-long phrases are The Fourteen Words. The inclusion of this section seems only to exist to validate someone's pet conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.135.198 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

I had added

88 had been previously referenced during February 2017 in regard to "credible fear" criterion for asylum claims

based on:

  • "Trump administration drafts plan to raise asylum bar, speed deportations". Reuters. 18 February 2017. Interviews to assess credible fear are conducted almost immediately after an asylum request is made, often at the border or in detention facilities by immigration agents or asylum officers, and most applicants easily clear that hurdle. Between July and September of 2016, U.S. asylum officers accepted nearly 88 percent of the claims of credible fear, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

This in regard to:

On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum

Chris Hayes pointed that out https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1012447869490647046 but the article doesn't elaborate on that. Since he made the connection I think that is proper grounds to include it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. A reliable source cites Hayes, which was borderline to include at all, honestly. The Reuters story is WP:SYNTH unless its significance can be directly explained by a reliable source. It's also going to cause confusion to readers without this context. This is a single obscure incident based on a breaking news tidbit without any indication of lasting impact. If there is eventually more coverage, use restraint before cramming even more details into this section. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which RS cites him? Would be useful to add a quote to whichever one does. Hayes seems notable enough in his own right to include mention of his connection, even if we didn't have another party reporting on him doing so. I think Hayes is that RS who directly explains the significance:

In re: the viral DHS post: the article only has 13 bullet points (not 14) and the 88 appears to be working off the fact that 88% of applicants pass their credible fear interview. (But a far lower percentage are granted asylum)

"Working off" is his establishing the connection, and he highlights the "credible fear" association with the number. The "nearly" and "percent" appear to have gotten lost in translation, which is the oddest, and we don't know where 13 (or less than 13) came from. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Misleading Image

There was an image of a heavily tattooed criminal at the head of the article, which I have removed. The article is not about criminals, nor is it about tattoos, so I believe the image to be placed there to create a misleading association between the topic and criminality.

Would an article about toast lead with an image of a heavily tattooed criminal if they had a tattoo of some toast? I don't believe so. 219.88.161.199 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That exact question was asked by 101.98.88.223 7 months ago except they said "apples" instead of "toast". Why don't you read the prior discussion and come back if you have any questions not already addressed. I've restored the image per the bold revert discuss cycle. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two IPs are the same editor. That editor is also Editan2018 and Edit2018 or a meatpuppet. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to reply so if this is not in the correct format I apologise. I am not a sockpuppet, and I would like to see any evidence because there isn't any. What a simple way to shut down discussion. Good job. 219.88.161.199 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue on your talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: The IP is not a sock. It also seems very unlikely that they are a meatpuppet, although in the world today that's not impossible - just impossible to prove or disprove. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Fourteen Words

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fourteen Words's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "adl":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Race" not "People"?

A recent edit was made declaring that the "proper" set of 14 Words is with "race" instead of "people" which all sources indicates is inaccurate. In fact, David Lane was big into numerology and so-called "Hermetic coding" and believed himself to be the so-called "666 Man" and the "Joseph Smith of Wotanism". With that being said, in the simple English Gematria, both sets of "14 Words" add up to 741. David Lane was deist and pagan, he was not a Christian. The number 741 is "Lucifer's number", Lucifer in David's scheme being reason and the light of knowledge. All available sources indicate that "race" was never used by David nor popularized in the first set of 14 Words, though of course Aryan is used in the second set which is basically historically inaccurate.64.134.171.78 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourteen_Words&oldid=867185333"