Talk:It's okay to be white: Difference between revisions
There might be a controversy here, i.e., more than one POV worth describing |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::Well its used by the far right but not exclusively by the far right would that still make it a far right slogan? Perhaps a more nuanced wording would be better? [[User:Thomas Norren|Thomas Norren]] ([[User talk:Thomas Norren|talk]]) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
::Well its used by the far right but not exclusively by the far right would that still make it a far right slogan? Perhaps a more nuanced wording would be better? [[User:Thomas Norren|Thomas Norren]] ([[User talk:Thomas Norren|talk]]) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Who else uses it and what are the sources? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
:::Who else uses it and what are the sources? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
==Controversy over what it's supposed to mean== |
|||
Some conservative backlash to the the slogan's condemnation has included attempts to discuss whether ''being white'' is intrinsically a bad thing -- as opposed to ''being black'' (see [[black pride]]). We don't have an article on [[racial pride]] (as of Jan. 2024 it redirects to [[ |
|||
Race (human categorization)]].Which cultures or races are allowed to be proud of their [[cultural heritage]]? Is there an exception? Who says so, and on what grounds? |
|||
These are not rhetorical questions, and I'm not promoting a side in the debate. I'd like the article to say something like |
|||
* X regards IOTBW as code for "it is preferable to be white, because whites are superior and should dominate other races". |
|||
I'd also like the article to find a way to describe (neutrally) the views expressed by Tucker Carlson and Scott Adams. |
|||
Like, "Adams regards American blacks as [[hate group]] because nearly half don't think being white is okay." |
|||
Balanced, of course, with criticism by X or Y or Z for daring to call blacks (who are themselves the target of hate and violence) hateful. |
|||
Does any of this sound like a good idea? --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:13, 29 January 2024
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 of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Bigoted statement?
Surely the quoted statement: "White folks have taken that beautiful sentiment and distorted it to suit their infinite need to center themselves" (which appears twice in the article for some reason) is a negative generalisation about white people, and therefore expresses bigotry towards them. If that is the case, surely it should be removed, as I'm sure any similarly bigoted statement about any other group would not be allowed (unless it was the subject of discussion itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.111 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Twice deleted content
User David Gerard has twice deleted the following content:
Others like TheBlaze described the campaign as trolling, or a prank.[1]
The arguments for the repeteated deletions have been: «GUNREL site, NN article author (not attributed per provision) - pretty clearly fails to meet DUE bar» and «rm Generally Unreliable source, almost certainly WP:UNDUE». But the current ban on using The Blaze says: «Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions». This is an attributed opinion. The text ought to be restored. XavierItzm (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Garcia, Carlos (November 4, 2017). "Maryland High School investigating flyers with simple 5-word message about white people". TheBlaze. Archived from the original on April 28, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
- As I said, it really doesn't show how it meets WP:DUE. This isn't just a guideline, or an information page like WP:RSP, it's hard policy:
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
- Why do we care what a GUNREL site says? We don't by default - explicitly, per policy - so an attribution to The Blaze itself doesn't pass the bar for WP:DUE.
- Is the author a notable person who is an expert in this area? No, they aren't. So the author doesn't pass the bar for WP:DUE.
- The policy says:
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
Emphasis in the original. - The Blaze is an Unreliable Source - found so in multiple editor discussions and duly documented as such - and so it has a high bar to pass before an opinion from it passes the WP:DUE policy.
- It seems clear to me that it really doesn't, and you haven't shown that it does. "In some cases, it may be" doesn't mean "I like it and want to put it in." You need to show that it meets WP:DUE, and how it meets WP:DUE - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Reposting part of talk page that is not working.
description of the slogan at the start of the article ("far-right slogan") is incorrect, since this slogan implies no hatred to any non white groups, but is used to inspire white people experiencing racism. So please fix it into something like: "It's ok to be white is an anti-racism slogan", and remove the "far-right" part. 2001:56B:DCB9:8D00:7469:68F5:B982:4D0A (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article is well sourced. Do you have any citations from reliable sources that provide your definition? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well its used by the far right but not exclusively by the far right would that still make it a far right slogan? Perhaps a more nuanced wording would be better? Thomas Norren (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Who else uses it and what are the sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well its used by the far right but not exclusively by the far right would that still make it a far right slogan? Perhaps a more nuanced wording would be better? Thomas Norren (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Controversy over what it's supposed to mean
Some conservative backlash to the the slogan's condemnation has included attempts to discuss whether being white is intrinsically a bad thing -- as opposed to being black (see black pride). We don't have an article on racial pride (as of Jan. 2024 it redirects to [[ Race (human categorization)]].Which cultures or races are allowed to be proud of their cultural heritage? Is there an exception? Who says so, and on what grounds?
These are not rhetorical questions, and I'm not promoting a side in the debate. I'd like the article to say something like
- X regards IOTBW as code for "it is preferable to be white, because whites are superior and should dominate other races".
I'd also like the article to find a way to describe (neutrally) the views expressed by Tucker Carlson and Scott Adams. Like, "Adams regards American blacks as hate group because nearly half don't think being white is okay." Balanced, of course, with criticism by X or Y or Z for daring to call blacks (who are themselves the target of hate and violence) hateful.
Does any of this sound like a good idea? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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