Talk:It's okay to be white: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 2 edits by Deena624 (talk) to last revision by Aquillion
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who else uses it and what are the sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]