Talk:It's okay to be white/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion

There should be a section on the plan which is widely reported. Also there is a lot more media and academic reaction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Agreed. Furthermore, it may be helpful to list the incidents, though maybe that should get its own article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Variations of English

Which Variation of English should we use? American? Canadian? British?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Ideally International English. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC).

Categories

Hey 2001:8003:548A:5600::/64, do you want to discuss the categories on the talk page?

I'll start: If the body of an article says the topic is related to white nationalism/supremacy and the "alt-right", the article should contain those categories. Why do you disagree with that? --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: the criteria for categorizing says A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having Also, you can find here: if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining However, I suggest keeping all categories because even Alt-right belongs to these categories. For example, we do not have Category:Alt-right in New Zealand but we do have Category:White nationalism in New Zealand. Ꞷumbolo 14:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: The debate over whether it is or isn't white supremacist makes up a large part of the body of the article so I added it to the lede. Problem solved :) --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually reading the article, I don't see any coverage about it being white supremacist. I see statements that White Supremacists are backing it, but if a white supremacist were to back wearing seatbelts while driving, would that make wearing seatbelts while driving white supremacist? I'm going to remove that statement from the lead until we can actually get some substantial content in the body supporting it. The best I can see (that's in the article) is that the statement has been seen as racist. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that 'racist' probably makes more sense in the lead than 'white supremacist'. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The usage should be more along the lines that racists and white-supremacists 'support' it, as do people that have strong Euro-centred value structures, they support. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Who?" template

This template is designed to mark WP:WEASEL words, and even specifically links to that page. In other words, "unsupported attributions". Sentences like "experts claim X is true", designed to weasel in a statement with no citations to back it up. A phrase like "others described the campaign as trolling" followed immediately by a citation to an article titled "4chan Troll Movement Hits Rocky River with 'It's OK To Be White' Signs" is not unsupported at all. The answer to the "who" question is right there in the citation: Eric Sandy, author of the article and writer for the Cleveland Scene news website. The other "who" tag on the page is also immediately answered by a citation in the same sentence. I removed the two tags on this page for the reasons outlined above, but it was immediately reverted, so I figured I'd make my case on the talk page and see what other editors have to say. NotTheInferno (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I filled in who the 'others' are with names so we should moved past this issue, I hope. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

David Duke has joined in

From his website[1]: "From Mark Collett —A frank discussion of the “It’s Okay to be White” flyers and how such a simple campaign has been so effective in not only reaching out to those who are sympathetic to our message, but also in making our opponents show their true colours. But this simple campaign has also managed to do something much bigger and much more important – it has effectively communicated the threat of white genocide to the public."

This is a good indicator of the phrase gaining popularity, and wider support; the video is chilling. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Only okay to be white

I am sorry, but this doesn't add up:

While the catch phrase pretends to be inoffensive on the surface, the subtext is that it's "only okay to be white", and as a result most people perceive it as racist.

Sure the article states the following:

Some 4channers themselves pointed out this flaw. “Don’t you guys see how this affects those who are non white?” asked one. “Non whites see this as racist because the message basically says it’s only okay to be white…This is why people think it is racist.”

Some '4channers' say that people perceive it as that, but that is something different than that the subtext is "it is only okay to be white". That was not how the designer of this thought about it.

This was the purpose of this action: To show that liberals chimp out by innocent mildly positive statements about whiteness and to show the normies that liberals hate whites.

So, it was not "it is only okay to be white", it really was "It is not okay to be white and we can show it to you".

It was a game they were bound to lose:

They could not react, but then the normies would see that this is tolerated. Who knows what happens next, right? The could react, but then the normies would see whites are openly loathed. They could react positively to it, but then the normies would understand it is really okay to be white.

See also the OP, which created this: knowyourmeme.com/photos/1310067-its-okay-to-be-white — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.154.162 (talk)

I don't follow. What improvement to the article are you suggesting? --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Raincloud Kid and C. W. Gilmore: discuss here instead of edit warring. WP:BRD. In my opinion, it is very inappropriate to cite "a 4channer" which chose not to publish their name. Definitely do not include in the article something a random unknown 4channer said, but include secondary commentary by the source. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

With respect, I wasn't 'edit warring', I made one revert, and was right to do so, as you've just noted. I'm happy to discuss the issue with any party, but like you said, a random 4channer is not a reliable source. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mark such changes as a 'minor edit', thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't revert edits that shouldn't be reverted, regardless of your personal views, thanks. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous re-write of the Lede section

Either a person or small group of people seem intent on removing "... neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups." from the last sentence. It mostly seems to be coming from a small range of IPs, but now and again a direct IP is showing up and changing it. It happened twice today [2] but I recall fixing this for at least the past month. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: request pending changes maybe? wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect socking from someone with a point of view they wish to push, given the current line is factual to the source and no reason are given for the edits from these multiple IPs. Was hoping to hear from other and their ideas on the problem and possible solutions (if any). C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing

The sentence The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups should be removed since it's not true, the meme has nothing to do with neo nazis or white supremacists. It's just an attempt to push a specific POV but this is not the right place to do it. Keep Wikipedia clean and remove the sentence. --Mandalorian (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

From the cited source: "The “It’s Okay to Be White” fliers that have been papered on schools and public spaces throughout the U.S. and Canada this month are part of a prank that was promoted widely by neo-Nazi trolls and veteran white supremacists." --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok but how can it be considered neo nazi propaganda? The source's neutrality seems questionable. --Mandalorian (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

By the definition of propaganda and the way these groups are using it: As David Duke says, "campaign" [3] that is used to influence the population. The phrase has not only been embraced by these groups but actively spread across keep demographic areas to further their KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist 'agenda' [4]. If the word fits, use it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Refocusing the article

At the moment the article says the slogan originated on 4chan, which is untrue. It's also focused entirely on the 2017 campaign by 4chan, despite the term's long history. (Though the long history is largely not covered by reliable sources, so it's okay that it's mostly missing).

I think the article should acknowledge that the slogan has been around for a while, and that the 2017 campaign was just one recruitment campaign using the term. I think the background section should talk about older uses of the term (prior to 2017), and the 2017 campaign should make up the rest of the article. Significant post-2017 uses can have new sections, as required.

I made a start on this change ([5]), but was reverted. So per WP:BRD I'm seeking consensus. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Any doubt of disconnect between the earlier and the recent uses is eliminated by the ADL source which talks about both. wumbolo ^^^ 16:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What was the purpose?

There is dispute on what to use. Article lead:

A) It's okay to be white is a slogan based on a poster campaign organised on the popular imageboard 4chan in 2017, to convert white Americans to the far-right.

B) It's okay to be white is a slogan based on a campaign organised on the popular imageboard 4chan in 2017, to create a flier that had an apparently inoffensive phrase on it that would nevertheless be treated as racist by people who viewed it, particularly liberals or members of the media.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbolo (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option A seems preferable. Both sources note that the ultimate goal of these flyers was to convert people to the far right. Further, I don't think the ADL source actually characterizes the flyers as "apparently inoffensive", since they note that "anybody who did come across “It’s okay to be white” fliers would be fully justified in thinking that a racist motive probably lurked behind them." Nblund ^talk 21:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  To quote the ADL, [...] flier that had an (ostensibly) inoffensive phrase [...]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and that parenthetical clearly implies that 4chan users were incorrect in believing that this was an inoffensive phrase. That implication is reinforced by the rest of the article, which examines the racist origins and racist intent behind the flyer. Nblund ^talk 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

But you argued that the ADL didn't characterize the flyers as "apparently inoffensive" (it said "ostensibly" which is a synonym for "apparently"). You just explained that it did. wumbolo ^^^ 21:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

They need to say "apparently" because it's not actually inoffensive. The context is clear that it seemed inoffensive to them, but not necessarily to anyone else. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And what did I say different? wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

to them to whom? ADL says that both 4chan and random people can find and have found it offensive. wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

At least one sense of "apparent" is roughly synonymous with ostensible, but another sense is roughly synonymous with "obvious", and "apparently" is often used in cases where the apparent truth is actually true or indeterminate. The example sentences for "ostensible" from Merriam-Webster all convey doubt on the part of the speaker, but the entry for "apparent" contains cases where the apparent truth was actually true. At best option B, is incomplete, because it says the phrase is "apparently inoffensive" while omitting the ADL's conclusion that the appearance was false. Nblund ^talk 22:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the difference between "apparently" and "ostensibly", ADL's analysis of whether this message is racist or not should be used as a reliable source of their statement, and not as a reliable source of a fact, since it clearly falls under "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces", as per WP:NEWSORG - the fact is that 4chan users believed that this message is harmless, but would provoke a reaction, and ADL's analysis is that it is indeed racist. This distinction needs to be clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here's my weak attempt: It's okay to be white is a slogan intended to convert white Americans to the far-right. The slogan originated with a poster campaign organised on the imageboard 4chan in 2017, and was intended to display racism in a way that seemed inoffensive. Needs work, but that seems like the gist of it, right? At the very least, 4chan's popularity is a distraction which doesn't belong in the lede of this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If 4chan's spreading of the meme doesn't belong, the neo-Nazis don't either, and the lead would make it seem like the posters fell from the sky. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes... My proposal specifically mentions 4chan, but we don't need to describe 4chan as "popular" in the lede of this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good synthesisNblund ^talk 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Consider the KnowYourMeme article linked in external links, which says that "It's Okay to Be White" is a slogan launched on 4chan as a "proof of concept" to demonstrate that signs with the phrase posted in public places would be accused of promoting racism and white supremacy - it leans towards the variant B.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2018

I am leaning towards B in favour of Grayfell's version because it makes it clear how the people popularising the slogan expected it to work: the slogan would be perceived as racist, and the backlash against the slogan would make white people feel attacked, and help to lead them towards the white nationalist cause. Simply saying that it is a slogan meant to convert people to the far-right by displaying racism in a seemingly inoffensive way fails to capture this crucial detail. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. wumbolo ^^^ 13:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Sources for article

I know almost all sources have bias, even RS, but what about 'TheRoot' in particular this [6] source for this article? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I know Washington Post as a conservative bias, but articles like [7] seem fairly NPOV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if we should retain the ADL citation either. [8] The article supposes that since some white supremacists had used the phrase in the past it is therefore a white supremacist phrase. Sagacity159 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

4channel is where it appears to have started and all sources point to this origin, for the spark that started this little firestorm; it is one of those exceptions that should be made of using a blog as a source, but as a rule this should not be the case. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to an anonymous edit I made on March 8th which changed the phrasing regarding the claims made by ADL. @Doug Weller: Care to explain why we should maintain that ADL is somehow unbiased enough of a source that we could reasonably use them to conclude that the generic phrasing here is used in the context of it's previous racist usage? Also that we can conclude that it was spread by exclusively "Neo-Nazi groups and organized racists" and not simply a 4chan prank that then gained such a following as well? Please remember NPOV, after all it is seemingly exclusively the ADL making these claims. For example, The College fix seems to claim these were spread by 4Chan to get people to go towards the "right", not necessarily for racist purposes, even calling it "troll attempt". --Sagacity159 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

In a previous discussion over at WP:RSN we have concluded that ADL has biased reporting on white supremacism. I think the source is poor, and more so since it is a blog, which I don't even see the author of. wumbolo ^^^ 06:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Wombolo, that's a distortion of what it said at RSN. Every decent person and organisation is against white supremacism, etc. The point about the ADL is that it is specifically an advocacy organization and thus should be attributed. We allow official blogs to be used, that's also not an issue. @Sagacity159: how did you end up here? There seems to be a phenomenon of dormant accounts suddenly appearing at articles about racism or politics, usually with the same pov. An editor with only 13 sporadic edits is hardly in a position to lecture others about our policy. I'm also wondering why you say that the ADL is the only sorce for "The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups" when the source is actually the Washington Post. Or is it the word exclusively that bothers you? Because that's not a problem, it's not in the article. The source for the 4chan origin is of course also not the ADL. I've rephrased and attributed the ADL sourced text. We can't make unsourced statements about what a post, eg at 4chan, doesn't say. We rarely use the word alleged except in criminal cases because its use generally indicates doubt, and that would be original research. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

My account has been dormant because I'm not very active. Thank you though for effectively accusing me of being a sock puppet account, that's rather rude. My issue was, as should be obvious, citing a source for something that was not substantiated within the source. Just as we wouldn't use an editorial for a source, I believe it is inappropriate to use a source here in such case that said source did not substantiate their claims beyond guilt by association. Wikipedia should be a place of at least moderately unbiased recording of events. As such, quoting the ADL would not be conducive to a good article. I will stand by any and all decisions I've made in the past to edit this article, but I'm not going to wage an edit war. If you'd like to do so, you can do so against the rules by yourself. Certainly we can't make unsourced statements about what 4chan doesn't say, but where is the sourced statement about what 4Chan did say that would imply this event to be racially motivated? The consensus seems to be that this was a trolling attempt that was politically motivated. Most importantly though, the word alleged should absolutely be used here since there is absolutely no solid proof of racist motivations, and to make such accusation would be accusation of a crime. It is in no way original research. Sagacity159 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fails MOS:LEAD

"The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazis, and racist groups including white supremacists." is what is in the lead section on It's OK to be white. It fails MOS:LEAD, which states "[The lead] should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." This is not a neutral point of view and should not belong in the lead. This should not be in the lead. Computer40 «»(talk) 18:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of fact. It is fine in the lead and doesn't violate the MOS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and then explain how this is not neutral under Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Computer40, could you explain how this fails to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."? That I see, the "significant view" of the sources is that the slogan has been spread by those groups - you'd do well to present sources to show that this isn't the case Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Stories in the Washington Post, Quartz.com, and the Guardian, among many others, have all linked the slogan to white nationalists and alt-right groups. WP:NPOV doesn't require that we censor or downplay facts that reflect poorly on the article subject. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUE says all significant viewpoints should be mentioned. Is it not okay to write why people use the saying? The viewpoint of the original creator does not speak for all the other people who use it. MOS:LEAD even says the lead should only display facts. Why isn't Hillary Clinton's email scandal displayed in her lead? Computer40 «»(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What on anyone’s planet does Hillary have to do with this? WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It says all significant viewpoints. A handful of assholes on /pol/ and a few well know nazis don't constitute a "significant" viewpoint.

And Hillary has nothing to do with this beyond losing the election that made the nazis think they were getting somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated in the talk page discussion. I added another significant viewpoint which other users were pointing out in WP:NPOV. Computer40 «»(talk) 01:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that someone else told you that you should add a Tucker Carlson clip to the intro? If so, that person gave you bad advice. The opinions of a single commentator probably aren't prominent enough to warrant mention here, especially since the intro doesn't mention any opinion pieces critical of the phrase. Nblund ^talk 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a single breath of a hint of suggestion at the NPOV noticeboard about "add[ing] another significant viewpoint", let alone Tucker Carlson. In fact, every single opinion matches the ones given here. Where are you getting this? --Calton | Talk 03:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You know that we all know you are lying about what was said at NPOVN, right? See WP:HONEST. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Do NOT accuse and slander me for lying when I never did. I never said NPOVN, I said WP:NPOV. You said that WP:NPOV said all significant viewpoints should be included, so I added one of Tucker Carlson, which is pretty significant. Do not go out of your way to accuse other editors for things that they haven't done. See WP:APOLOGY. Computer40 «»(talk) 08:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Get over it; you lied and you damn well know it. You claimed "other users" pointed it out to you, and now you're saying it's me? When I said that, I explicitly added "...and a few well know nazis don't constitute a "significant" viewpoint." as part of the same fucking sentence. There's no way you missed that. You. Are. Lying. And we all know it. Now stop, or my next stop will be ANI to report yet another editor POV pushing nazi bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You wrote I added another significant viewpoint which other users were pointing out in WP:NPOV. The ONLY place where "other users" could "point out" anything regarding NPOV about this article is at the NPOV noticeboard, where you had already tried recruiting sympathizers instead of discussing here. So no, not even close to "slander", your rewriting of history notwithstanding.

So help us out, then: who were these "other users"? Name them. --Calton | Talk 09:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus is that people do not want this removed. I have tried to make other suggestions such as adding counter-arguments to make the lead more neutral, but it seems like no one wants to help with that and that every user wants to prevent those counter-arguments from sticking. Computer40 «»(talk) 08:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to make other suggestions...to make the lead more neutral

You're not listening: it's ALREADY neutral. Literally no one has agreed with your claim. --Calton | Talk 09:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Advised Rewrite

I have composed below my suggestion for a rewrite of this page, which more accurately and unbiasedly represents the topic.There is either a gross negligence or maliciousness on the part of the present creator, and this needs to be rectified.

Extended content collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's okay To Be White or It's OK To Be White is a slogan popularized by a poster campaign originating from the /pol section of the imageboard 4chan. The slogan and ensuant campaign began as a proof of concept for how a simple message, with a literal and singular meaning would create a "massive media shitstorm". Those member of the /pol who began and popularized the movement explained that the outrage was their objective, as a means to generate examples of "doublethink" and general absurdity. In time since its initial popularization, the campaign has taken on a more clear and honest intentions. As of 2018, among the /pol community, the media outrage is a useful byproduct, whereas the literal message on the flyers has become the more important component, which as per their description, serves to combat the "Growing anti-white racism in america". Background The IOTBW movement was began by a collection of anonymous users on the 4Chan imageboard's /pol forum, where it was advertised as a means to provoke reactions which could be used as evidence of bias, dishonesty, doublethink, and general ignorance or stupidity on the part of the political left. The message was promptly "bumped" to the top of the board, and gained exposure to a majority of /pol. From there, it spread quietly across numerous platforms, slowly gaining traction and attention. As per instruction of the campaign, those who came across it waited until Halloween and simultaneously posted large numbers of the posters. The posters were put up en masse in a variety of public areas, though most notably were places such as college campuses, which were targeted explicitly for belief that they would be especially easy to provoke, as well as exceptionally volatile. Shortly afterward, the story broke in a variety of news outlets, gaining national attention almost overnight. As the story broke, the movement was swiftly attributed to Neo-Nazis, White Nationalist, and Racism in America at large. Such labels as "covertly racist" were applied. In response to this, and aided by the massive media attention, the efforts and popularity of the movement rapidly exploded. More flyers, along with other merchandise- most notably shirts, began emerging across the entire United States. Secondary Involvements Shortly after the story went viral, numerous public figures, of varying degrees of fame and infamy became involved. Most notable among them include David Duke, Milo Yiannopolis, and Lauren Southern. David Duke Well after the movement had been launched, white supremacist David Duke announced his public support of the campaign, and began sharing it as well. This occurrence was taken as evidence for accusation of racist intentions, though these accusations were made without appropriate qualifications such as: David Duke and White Supremacy at large was not the source or progenitor of the movement as it was popularized. "David Duke and the movement both believe IOTBW, and David Duke is a racist who believes in White Supremacy, therefore the movement must be racist" is a logical fallacy, specifically False Equivocation. The culture and language of /pol is explicitly counter cultural, satirical, and contextual. Its inundation with many layers of sarcasm, inside jokes, and general irreverence for social norms makes the literal interpretations of things said on /pol, and in its larger community, due additional clarity and scrupulosity. Failure to do so is an exampleof Equivocation as a fallacy. Milo Yiannopolis Similarly to David Duke, Milo Yiannoplis became involved with the IOTBW movement after it had broke, taking extensive efforts to push this message to the larger populous, even sponsoring merchandise which was sold with his endorsement. Milo washeavily criticized for these action, and law suits regarding hate speech and discrimination were threatened to both him, and those producing the shirt, though none of those threats bore fruit. Lauren Southern Lauren Southern, conservative activist and public figure was lambasted publicly for having been photographed wearing an IOTBW shirt, which was essentially an enlarged version of the poster. She was labeled as a Nazi, White Nationalist, and a Racist on national news without substantiation beyond her being photographed with the shirt. Her involvement with the Conservative movement was used to generally reinforce claims regarding the inter-connectivity between the political Right, Alt-Right, White Supremacy, and the IOTBW Movement. Reception of Reactions Among the members of /pol, as well as various less notably involved communities, the campaign was viewed as a resounding success. In the days, weeks, and even months following the event, examples of explicit Racism on the part of those accusing the movement of racism were spread and popularized. Among many internet subcultures, the event was a stroke of cultural genius, as well as an impressive display of activist unity amid the chaos of online discussion. The various reports made regarding the movement were and are cited as examples of the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies which those reporting would willingly engage in, one such example being: If one were to deny "Its Okay To Be White" then naturally, they purport that "Its not okay to be white" (A counter slogan which gained some measure of popularity in its own right). Then, "Its not okay to be white" isn't a racist statement. "Its not okay to be black" is a racist statement. Thus the only reconciliation is that "Black people and White people are inherently unequal." The irony of course being, that "Black people and white people are inherently unequal" is a racist statement. Thus, the person who asserts the counter claim must either concede the fallacy of one of their premises, or accept an explicitly racist conclusion to reconcile them. Attacks and Counterclaims Of those attributing racist intentions to the the IOTBW movement, numerous arguments were made. Many of them are deeply flawed, though others bear consideration. The following are some of those such claims, as well as relevant facts and explanations It Only Ok To Be White Was an inference attributed to the slogan "Its Ok To Be White", whereby many asserted that the slogan and campaign were subtle double speak, which suggested the additional caveat of "Only" even though it is not explicitly stated. While this claim suffers from no explicit fallacies, it is flawed in its capacity to attribute motive. While it is entirely possible, even probable, that the statement is used by and among white supremacists to communicate exactly the sentiment attributed to it by certain reporters, that reality does not prove or reasonably imply that those who created the message, as well as everyone who uses the message can not mean it literally. In fact, many of the news agencies who reported on this supposed racism, also reported the given motives of provocation on the part of the creators. The movement from its very first post was explained as an attempt to provoke lunacy with an objective and true statement. In what could be viewed as a fit of cosmic irony, the emergence of the "It only ok to be white" rumor was predicted by numerous /pol members on the original post, as well as numerous subsequent ones. Explaining that there would likely be those who would attack the statement on the basis that it exactly such a conclusion was possible to infer. Not withstanding an absolute lack of evidence to suggest that this was the case, the mere possibility that this could become a later point of contention and vulnerability for those attacking the movement was the source of extensive debate. This debate would eventually produce additional heuristic, rules and guidelines for those participating, as well as prescribed behaviors for interacting with those who sought to provoke them, and those who sought to contaminate the pure and objective nature of the slogan. These guidelines employed the popular online pejorative "Shill" to describe anyone who was a poor representative of the cause. Anyone who engaged in peripheral argument, who altered the message in any way, or who involved or included it with additional messages was to be discredited and reviled by the community at large. Though the term shill implies a particular ulterior motive for an impostor, as it is used in this context, it includes anyone who is on the out for any motive. As the movement applies and prescribes its use, the term is intentionally inclusive of all motives as to avoid any forms of conflation or subjectivity of the larger cause. The guidelines are described in numerous images in identical font to the original posters, and are frequently exchanged and reposted during discussion regarding the IOTBW movement. Guilt by Association Particularly, that hateful parties such as White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis also embrace the slogan, and thus the slogan is incorrect, morally objectionable, and itself racist. This claim as it was put forth, came without any such appropriate qualification or explanation as to overcome either False Equivalence or Argument from Fallacy. While racist parties do indeed support and participate in the movement, there are several key details which require mention. Firstly, that these parties do not solely compose the body of the movement, that they are in fact in the minority among the movement, and are not the source of the movement, and thus not authorities on the movements meaning, nor are they able to forward changes to the movements meaning. Secondly, even if these racist or otherwise unsavory parties were capable of asserting a considerable enough presence within society as a whole to impose the meaning of the phrase as implying a racist subtext, this would still not disqualify the literal meaning of the statement as wrong. Simply because the reason offered for putting forward a claim is flawed, does not mean that the claim is incorrect, or that the contrary is correct.

--Azeranth (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a large quantity of original research and editorializing language. Wikipedia articles should summarize topics according to reliable sources using neutral language and a formal tone. If you have reliable sources for any of this, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an essay -- and the fact you refer to the "the present creator" tells me that you don't have much of a grip on what an encyclopedia article is or how Wikipedia works. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I second both comments above mine, and add that you have completely failed to point out any neutrality problems with the article that would require correcting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian parliament motion?

[9]: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) removed this addition from MFdeS (talk · contribs), and I'm not clear why. The edit comment was failed verification, and, well, it seems to be cited to Special Broadcasting Service, which I'm not an expert on, not being Australian, but from our article seems a perfectly reliable source. And the content also seems of sufficient weight to deserve a sentence or two - a government motion, after all, even if it failed - and clearly relevant to this article. And yet the removing editor is quite experienced and generally knows what he is about, so I'm reluctant to just revert. (Not to mention the obvious dangers of getting into an edit war with someone able to pull lightning bolts out of their trousers.) MjolnirPants, could you explain? --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at the contents of the edit: [10]. The title is "Australian Government support" which is extraordinarily misleading considering that the Australian government does not support this slogan in any way, then the the body says that "Australian Government senators voted to support..." a motion endorsing the slogan, but the actual source (and the end of that content) says that the motion was defeated, not supported by the Senate. I'm sorry, but when content says the exact opposite of what the source says, even if said content then goes on to contradict itself, that's "failed verification" as per my edit summary. I had originally started to rewrite the section, but frankly, I doubt this is even WP:DUE for this article. I'm open to adding it with a credible argument for inclusion, but just not phrased the way it originally was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I also wanted to add that there's no need to fear the trouser lightning. It may cause convulsions surprisingly similar to a teenager aggressively headbanging to Celtic Frost in a 1990-s era night club, but it passes quickly and leaves behind nothing worse than a hankering to listen to viking metal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Er … club dancing with dangerous weapons in your pants. Why does that sound familiar? I don't think you've ever told us your paying job... --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You should never bring a gun to a metal club. The bouncers will most likely take it from you, bend it into a pretzel and then insert it into your... well... <shudders> seriously, those guys are scary af. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Still think it's pretty WP:DUE, though, as a government motion from the other side of the planet with 3 good sources. I'll probably rewrite it as something like this:

Australian parliament motion

In October 2018, right-wing politician Pauline Hanson proposed an "It's OK to be white" motion in the Australian Senate. It was supported by the governing Liberal-National Coalition, but was defeated by opponents who called it racist. (same 3 refs, possibly split among the sentences)

OK? --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's POV as it doesn't say anything about the motion. There's no reason to include every mention of the subject phrase in this article. This is not an article about an incidental phrase; this was part of a movement spanning several countries. To mention every mention of this trivial phrase (outside the alt-right news cycle) would be POV, especially if the only person making the connection is an Australian politician (i.e. not a reliable source). wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that the Liberal-National coalition supported this? It looks like some specific members supported, but if the governing coalition had supported it, then the motion would have passed. Nblund ^talk 16:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the source I read I'd say it is not accurate to say the Liberal-National coalition supported it. Some senators from that coalition did, but not the coalition in any formal sense. I know it's a hair-split but an important one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the commenters above me. But if you nix the "LN coalition supported it" bit, I'd be okay with it, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If we stick to what the source says and don't editorialize it's not a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'd even be okay with adding "some members of..." in front of that bit, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Allrighty, proposal 2, hoping to take objections into account. (The Sydney Morning Herald piece is literally titled "Coalition backs Pauline Hanson's 'It's OK to be white' motion", and it lost 31-28, so we shouldn't imply that it wasn't supported by anyone but Hanson herself.) How about:

In October 2018, right-wing politician Pauline Hanson proposed an "It's OK to be white" motion in the Australian Senate intended to acknowledge the "deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilization".(ref) It was supported by some members of the governing Liberal-National Coalition, but was defeated 31-28 by opponents who called it racist. (ref)(ref)

I'm not sure I understand the rest of Wumbolo's objection, though. Is the claim that we need to show that this is the same "It's OK to be white" slogans as the rest of this article? As in, there might be multiple completely unrelated "It's OK to be white" slogans? Gosh, I'd hope there aren't! I think it's not necessary, but if you think it is, all three sources write that this is a reference to the established slogan among the alt-white movement, and don't imply that there is more than one, so I'm pretty sure that is sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the claim that we need to show that this is the same "It's OK to be white" slogans as the rest of this article? As in, there might be multiple completely unrelated "It's OK to be white" slogans I think the sources are pretty clear that this was the same slogan that WSes in the US use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Resolves my concern Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: it went up for a revote and several members are saying they voted on it because of an "error" - which is amusing. Nblund ^talk 17:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a good thing. Now we have more sources to work with. By the way, proposal 2 satisfies all of my concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 17:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not to be a PITA, but with the source Nblund just posted, I think we should add that. So append "The following day, the motion was brought up to be recommitted and was rejected unanimously.(ref)" and that should do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. To be honest, I'm kind of relieved to see that other governments can be just as incompetent as mine... --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  I guess some party whips made some people have bad nights. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Depending on the whipping, it could of been a good night as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

OK folks, I put in a subsection on the main page. I think it contains all the points we agreed upon, but I tweaked it slightly to, I hope, read better, without altering the meaning much. (Yes, I also liked the administrative error phrasing!) But it does differ slightly from proposal 2, so if you want to edit it further, that's OK; as long as it contains the main points - Au Senate proposal named after this slogan, defeated, probably Ms. Hanson's name - I'll likely be fine with it. I'm also not completely sure whether it should be a subsection of "Reaction", or should be a standalone section, but will accept it either way. --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The current wording does not reflect the reported course of events. Pauline Hanson moved a motion entitled "It's OK to be white". Virtually every Australian Liberal and National (the governing party) senator that was present in the chamber, including the Indigenous Affairs minister Nigel Scullion voted to support the motion. Government Ministers, including Attorney General Christian Porter and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann took to Twitter to defend the governing Coalition's support for the motion. The following day, following criticism from Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the vote was held once more and Government senators voted against it. Given there's been a fair bit of voting and the current wording seems to have support I'm not going to change it. Still, in my opinion, the current wording misses the gist of the issue: Government Senators overwhelmingly supported the motion, and only the next day, under pressure, changed their mind and stated that an 'administrative error' was to blame. MFdeS (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The wording you provided completely misrepresents the issue and this comment only serves to explain said misrepresentation in terms of WP:OR instead of just plain dishonesty, so I don't really have much sympathy for your position right now. I'd also like to see a source before I believe the "virtually every" claim you make there, as it doesn't seem to jive with the actual vote count given in the sources you quoted. Finally, I don't think your description here fairly characterizes the subsequent events, either. Your use of "under pressure" seems highly ingenuous, given that none of the sources provided use the term or ever explicitly use any synonymous term. In fact, the re-commit vote seems to have been called specifically to give Senators the chance to change their vote, which is the opposite of putting pressure on them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Senate Journal has the breakdown of votes on the motion on page 3895 and shows that almost every Government senator supported the motion. Here is the reference: Can you be specific as to how else you think I misrepresent the issue? I think it was perfectly fair to say that Australian Government senators were under pressure to retract their vote once they realised the significance of the phrase "it's OK to be white" that they had just voted to support. Please state what specifically you think is WP:OR, I'm sure I'm not the only one without unlimited time to trawl through all the reporting on the issue. There are reports that Government support for the motion "sparked a furore", and this is the pressure I refer to, I'm not sure in what way you think this is ingenuous. Perhaps you are reading a different meaning into what I wrote (I meant specifically pressure caused by the public embarrassment of having voted for a motion that is named after a racist slogan). MFdeS (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Senate Journal has the breakdown of votes on the motion on page 3895 and shows that almost every Government senator supported the motion. It shows that 28 out of 59 Senators present and voting supported it. It doesn't break down party affilitations. It doesn't say anything about ""almost every" Senator from party X supported it. It's WP:OR to look at a primary source, then turn to a different source to get party affiliations and go down the list, figuring it out yourself. And even if the coalition did support it outright right up until they realized it would be unpopular, that doesn't amount to "Australian government support".

Your original edit claimed exactly that with the title of the section (which was the opposite of the truth: the motion was never sustained) and your comment here suggested that it was because you engaged in WP:OR to determine that most of the governing party had voted in favor of it.

Furthermore, the story about the administrative error is both believable and unchallenged by the RSes, so we should take it at face value. Which means we should not lend any weight to the original vote, as it was made by senators who had incorrect beliefs about what the motion was. Have you ever watched a video of Senate votes? I have. I've seen them from multiple English speaking countries, including Australia, and let me tell you: they're boring as shit and it's abundantly clear every time that a huge chunk of the senators are barely paying attention, focusing on other tasks unless the vote at hand is important to them. And then, when it's time to vote, they all consult their notes and then look attentive for trwo minutes. I have no trouble believing the narrative being put forth.

Regarding the re-commit vote, It's certainly possible that some of the Senators knew damn well what they were voting for and then, fearing the backlash, changed their minds. But that's not what's described unless you completely ignore the part about the error in directing coalition senators to support it. And none of the sources say that they senators were under pressure to change their votes, only that they changed their votes when they got the chance to. So yeah, it may be fair to say that, but it's still WP:OR. If you want to say they were pressured to change their votes, find a source that says that, not a source that seems to hint at that, so long as you ignore some other stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, from the original references supplied with my edit: "The motion was defeated 31-28 despite the support of government senators" (fifth paragraph down, emphasis is mine). Also "The Australian Senate has narrowly voted down a motion condemning “anti-white racism”, despite government senators voting for the controversial statement echoing alt-right rhetoric." (first paragraph, again my emphasis). From the reference I provided here: "The Morrison government was forced to defuse a race row on Tuesday after its senators backed a provocative motion by One Nation stipulating "it's OK to be white"." (again my emphasis). You repeatedly claim that there is no basis for stating that the Government supported the motion, and this is an evolving story, but Australian Government support for Pauline Hanson's motion, followed by retraction is how the news is being reported, and there are plenty of references. For context, my original edit said "In October 2018, Australian Government senators voted to support an 'It's OK to be white' motion moved by Pauline Hanson. Despite support from the governing Liberal-National coalition, the motion was defeated.". The references I provided support this, and my edit was demonstrably NOT WP:OR MFdeS (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

English is a varied language. "Government" may be a common idiomatic term for the party with the current majority in Australia, but it is not used that way elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, and should not use slang terms or local idioms. When you write "Australian government support", the vast majority of readers will read that as meaning that the Australian government officially supports something, implying that it passed senate, was endorsed by the executive leadership, was approved by the courts, etc. That is categorically not what happened. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MFdeS! G'day, mate! I wrote the current text hoping to satisfy everyone to some extent. If not nopro, at least not devo. May I number the current 3 sentences to get clarification on your objection?

1. On October 15, 2018, right-wing politician Pauline Hanson proposed an "It's OK to be white" motion in the Australian Senate intended to acknowledge the "deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilization".
2. It was defeated 31-28 by opponents who called it a racist slogan from the white supremacist movement.
3. The following day, the motion was brought up again and rejected unanimously by senators in attendance, when its initial supporters from the Liberal-National Coalition said they had voted for it due to an administrative error.

Is there a specific sentence (1-3) or part of sentence that you object to? Or is your main objection just (4) that you would like the text to specifically say "Australian Government senators voted to support"? If so, I have to say that, as MjolnirPants writes (is that a mystical Uru hammer in his pocket, or is he just glad to see us?), in the US at least, that's not a commonly used turn of phrase to indicate "senators from the ruling party". (To avoid similar difficulties, I've been trying to insert a few translations to Australian in my comment.) You may notice that I did try to write "It was supported by the governing Liberal-National Coalition" in my first proposal, but that met with objections from Simonm223 and Nblund as well as MPants, since there wasn't a source saying they all supported it. So that was too dodge for them. The current sentence 2 does say it had 28 supporters, and sentence 3 says they were mostly from the L-N C. Is that not good enough? Fair dinkum? Or is your objection something completely different? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed feedback ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and GRuban. First the tl;dr: yes, I think it should specifically mention the initial, explicit Government (yes, Executive Government) support for the Senate motion. I explain why below.

I'll try to address specific issues one by one. I'll start off by saying, please keep in mind that the US is not the world, and parliamentary systems like Australia use different language. I understand that, by the same token, Australia is not the world, but wording that may be inappropriate or sound weird to those who live in a system that has a presidential executive separated from the workings of parliament (as in the US) is perfectly appropriate to describe the situation in a country where the executive is formed exclusively of elected parliamentarians belonging to the majority party (such as Australia, the UK and much of Europe). By definition the Government is composed of members of parliament, and ministers chosen from among these. This section refers to Australia, not the US, and should use terms that are accurate (e.g. it would be wrong to describe the US President as its Prime Minister).

I have no objection to the header and it's probably better reflective of the situation as it is 72 hours after the events. At the time I wrote the original, the events being reported by the Australian mainstream news media was that the Government had supported the motion.

On the content, I think it is important to state that the motion had official Government support in the first instance (presumably until someone realised the meaning of the slogan, but saying this would be WP:OR). This is how it is being reported in the Australian mainstream news media. For example, in the reference in The Guardian: "Government blames 'administrative error' for its support for 'it's OK to be white' vote". Further down the track, The Attorney General (an executive Government position, as distinct from a member of parliament) is referenced: "Christian Porter, the attorney general, issued a statement on Tuesday saying the directive to vote for Hanson’s motion had been sent from his office “without my knowledge”.". This is how the story is being reported within the Australian mainstream news media: the Executive Government (via the Attorney General's office) mistakenly instructed Government senators to vote for the motion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, your original reason for reverting my edit was that "...the Australian government does not support this slogan in any way...". Yet this is exactly what they did (mistakenly or not), what the references say if you take the trouble to read them, and the whole reason for the edit.

It is now clear that the instruction to support the motion was sent 'in error', and it's clearly not up to WP to speculate on motives. I agree that my original wording was not ideal, but it should be possible to accurately and objectively describe the events without controversial implications, should it not? Could we reword the first sentence to something along the lines of:

- "On October 15, 2018, right-wing politician Pauline Hanson proposed an "It's OK to be white" motion in the Australian Senate intended to acknowledge the "deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilization".[30] Despite the motion being supported by Australian Government senators, it was defeated 31-28 by opponents who called it a racist slogan from the white supremacist movement.". The content that follows about the second vote is perfectly good and I have no issue with it.

I don't know how many more references you'd like me to chase up, but the Aus Government did initially support the motion (mistakenly or otherwise). Is it because stating so could cause embarassment to the Australian Government, and is not staying well-referenced, NPOV and non-partisan enough? I thought at the time, and I still do, that it is entirely relevant to the article to show what happened with the use of the slogan (in Australia, this well-reported event may be most people's first encounter with the slogan).

The motion failed. That is the opposite of official support, yet your wording indicated official support. I don't see how anything you've said here changes that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with changing sentences 2 and 3 to

It was supported by most senators from the governing Liberal-National Coalition, but was defeated 31-28 by opponents who called it a racist slogan from the white supremacist movement. The following day, the motion was brought up again and rejected unanimously by senators in attendance, when its initial supporters said they had voted for it due to an administrative error.

I'm not sure whether others will agree, though. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I'm really okay with anything as long as it's factual and not using any regional idioms that aren't going to be understood elsewhere, like saying "Government" when what you really mean is "current governing party". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Works for me too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Thanks for putting up with my long-winded explanations. MFdeS (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Poorly Writen/Biased Article Needs Fixing

It appears that this article is very biased towards left leaning groups. The writers of this article have not taken all sides into account, and are labeling people who support this as "White Supremacists" and "Neonazis" when this isn't the case at all. There may be a few neonazis and the like who support this movement, but labeling all supporters based on a small group is very wrong indeed, and portrays the incorrect message. There are countless examples of people who support the phrase "It's OK to be white." saying that its OK to be members of other races too . The main problem with this is that the reason behind people saying "Its OK to be white" is often misunderstood. From quick research, I can see that whole reason this social movement was started, was to point out how people will become upset at this statement even though there is nothing racist about it. There are plenty of examples of people who say "Its OK to be black", which is not considered racist by many of the same people who consider saying "It's OK to be white" racist. I'm confused behind the logic of the people who wrote this article, unless it was to push for their own political agenda.

Instead, I recommend that this article is split up into multiple sections, where all viewpoints are explained throughly, instead of this childish finger pointing that is going on...

Ramaraunt (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we must use reliable secondary sources. Ꞷumbolo 16:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for repeatedly implying that only racists, nazis etc participated? That is bias.--97.87.9.107 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that says that other people spread the message too, why don't you present it here on the talk page? --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have to disprove your claim. You have to prove it. That is how reason, and Wikipedia, works.97.87.9.107 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. That seems to be an issue, is how hard it is to find source that portray the other side of this argument. Most articles are negative, and you really have to look hard to find people with the opposite opinion. It seems to be one of the reasons this movement was started in the first place. There are articles that mention the tweet I showed. There are also articles about a person who promoted this idea in a speech, and was attacked by fellow students.

 Finally, there are articles which show interview of students, which show a larger picture of what is going on.  Finally, there are a few articles which explain what the actual meaning of the phrase was meant to stand for  Ramaraunt (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems a misrepresentation to say in Wikipedia’s voice that “it’s ok to be white” is a nazi thing. There are sources describing this poster campaign as a 4chan prank. I moved the nazi stuff from lead to media section and attributed it to source and used quotes to accurately represent what the sources say.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

DynaGirl in any part of the article says that the phrase is a "nazi thing", it states that was used by conservative, white supremacist and neonazis differentiating each group. Also the sources cite David Duke and writers of the Daily Stormer, this should be in the article by the way. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Added, and change it according with the sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems best to use direct quotes when adding such content. I changed. “The poster campaign was promoted widely by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, such as writers for The Daily Stormer and David Duke among others.” to the actual direct quote from source which is “Writers for The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website directed at disaffected white teenage boys, joined in to promote the prank soon after it was launched, as did former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and other politically organized racists.”

What you’ve been adding isn’t really supported by sources. It doesn’t seem accurate to say this meme has been “widely promoted” by anyone at this point. This 4chan meme has hardly reached the level of lolcats or rickrolling.

Rupert Loup, please read WP:BRD. You added Nazi to the lead/top. It’s been reverted by multiple users and you’ve restored it multiple times. Please discuss and seek consensus before re-adding Nazi to the lead or top of the reaction section. It doesn’t seem to belong on top of reaction section. The top of the reaction section is discussing how people who encounter the posters are interpreting them and how they are reacting by removing the posters/tearing them down. That the Daily Stormer wrote about this meme seems to better fit in “other media” because Daily Stormer is hardly legitimate media.

At this point, I’m not sure if Nazi should be mentioned in lead or not. If it is, seems it should be discussed and added with consensus wording which is carefully neutrally worded and sticks to sources and isn’t original research.--DynaGirl (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Newsweeks sates:

The “It’s Okay to Be White” fliers that have been papered on schools and public spaces throughout the U.S. and Canada this month are part of a prank that was promoted widely by neo-Nazi trolls and veteran white supremacists. Other conservative outlets have also covered the fliers in a straightforward manner, including Red State and the Daily Caller, which illustrates how America’s openly racist far-right appears to use such spaces to promote a radical agenda.

"Veganism was promoted by Hitler, among others". :D 213.175.37.10 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And is best too not overquoted and should be paraphrases. See MOS:QUOTE. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

David Duke and the writers of the Daily Stormer are some examples, the article states that there where others that react in that way. Trying to minimize the role of these group when the sources state that they take part is WP:POV. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's more WP:POV, directly quoting the source stating that they merely participated, or "paraphrasing" to make it sound like they were the driving force behind the whole thing because you don't like it and want it to be associated with easily-maligned groups? Get real.

DynaGirl, I think that you are right in that it should go in other media. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

References

This post is super bias, Barely any actual facts and clearly the writer knows nothing about how it started because they are clearly biased.

Why would you write about this on a site that's meant to give information not give them biased and wrong info JamWay17 (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

November 1 edits

Hi @MrCatLover: you've made a bunch of edits that seem to be down-playing the well-established links between this poster campaign and white-supremacist movements, with most of your edit summaries lacking any clear justification for, for instance, lowering the position of White Supremacy on the see-also list, removing White Power from the list and including Identity Politics in their place. In addition, your one edit summary removed Russel conjugations seems rather inaccurate when you, in fact, tried to separate the anonymous channers who created this racist meme from later white supremacists who used this. This is not removing a Russel conjugation. I'd suggest you should come to talk to discuss these edits which may be seen as contentious, especially considering your long period of dormancy prior to making these edits, and your newness to this area of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I can actually see some legitimacy to the Canadian Heritage Alliance see also considering they did something of a precursor campaign to this one. Concur on the other removals. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

White power is a redirect to white pride. Having both in a see also section will only cause confusion, and redirects should be avoided in these sections anyway, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. I do not think adding identity politics is useful. There are dozens of relevant links which could be added, and there would have to be an obvious reason why that particular one is being listed. Assuming good faith, this reason isn't apparent. Grayfell (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, whose idea was it to redirect White power to White pride over White supremacy?!?!?? Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that surprising to me. White supremacy is an academic topic spanning centuries of history, while "white power" and "white pride" are both recent slogans used by closely overlapping subgroups. The best place to discuss this would probably be talk:white pride, however. Grayfell (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's something for another page anyway. I've changed the see also to redirect to White Supremacy - as it's a legit see also and not a duplication via redirect. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, these sections should generally not repeat links which are already in the article or its navboxes. White supremacy is currently linked in the lede, the body, and in the Template:Alt-right navbox. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

profanity in introduction

It says "massive media shitstorm".

It's okay to be white[1] or It's OK to be white (IOTBW) is a slogan based on a poster campaign organised on the American imageboard 4chan in 2017, as a "proof of concept" that a "harmless message" would cause a "massive media shitstorm",[2] so that the media backlash against the slogan would help convert white Americans to the far-right.[3]

I don't see why a swear word is used in the article. Is this an article about profanity? Why not keep profanity in articles about profanity? This article runs the risk of being called vandalism if it simply exists to spread profanity to articles that are not about profane expressions or words or their etymology. 50.202.216.18 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a quote. It's hardly our fault that the channers have foul mouths. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would normally be regarded as either a swear word or a profanity. Are you talking about shit? Deb (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• The source uses ****storm (clearly meaning shitstorm) but still shaky, also why are we using a radio station as a source? It is also a little out of context the source says A harmless message like this has already caused a massive media ****storm before whereas our article says a "harmless message" would cause a "massive media shitstorm". The difference being the source is saying the shitstorm refers to previous things whereas we are saying it refers to this. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• The lead sentence is very bad. Many sentences have been proposed above, but none of them have more than one pair of quotation marks. And the source cited in the lead seems more like WP:ELNO spam than any other reference in the article, which all come from WP:RS's. I see now that the radio source is not used anywhere else in the article, so I'm not even going to bother looking at the rationale for adding it. wumbolo ^^^ 13:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah I am not a big fan using several partial quotes stitched together with our words in between to form a sentence not explicit in the source. Feels a little OR and synth. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I mean I wouldn't oppose a rewrite; just not because of the phrase "shitstorm". Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I have no specific issue with shitstorm if it is in a quote either but would think a re-write is in order. PackMecEng (talk)
        • Does my amendment help at all? Deb (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I like Deb's amendment. --GRuban (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Statements and Faulty Citations

The citations in the article are often flawed secondary sources, when primary sources are readily available that contradict them. For instance, the Washington Post article cited as proof that this movement was propagated by "the far right" refers to the origin of the article as "an anonymous chat-room comment that suggested the message would feed social unrest and sway white Americans to far-right ideologies." The actual comment referenced mentions that the campaign is an attempt to delegitimize the "far left" and does not seek - in fact actively avoids - ties to the far right. The original comment mentions people becoming "ourguys" but there isn't enough evidence to determine that that involved being included in far right groups, or at least no evidence is cited.

This is one example of either a misleading or poorly cited statement, which this article seems to be full of. Do I have objections to changing these> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langhston (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Go read WP:P&G and every single page linked there (pay special attention to WP:IRS) before you make any more edits to this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Langhston is clearly correct here. Despite the media stating that this is a far right or nazi spread thing, there’s actually zero evidence to support that. My suspicion is that they were made to look like fools and so they tried to support their original statements against the phrase by claiming without basis that it’s far right or Nazi related when it isn’t.

The fact that the wiki article says the phrase was “spread” by that ex kkk guy who merely wrote about it on his own site is misleading. It wasn’t “spread” by him, just as it wasn’t “spread” by the mainstream media, merely it was written about. Just as I’m sure the black lives matter movement was commented on by the black panthers, doesn’t mean it was instigated or propagated by them. Rhino015 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

debatable neutrality of claim or goal (missing neutrality of source)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. the websites use hate as intended goal Hate means accepting any consequences (starting with prison or death) to obtain a certain goal. It is like love, but the opposite side. Only accepting parts of the identity is a bit vague, when not put to context of a better frame (of the political enemy). 2. The backlash was to be expected, since racism allegations and identity politics are a political power-tool for cultural hegemony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:A535:4460:E442:C59D (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

ADL not reliable source

Voting to change that the ADL should not be a reliable source and removed, as people don't list conservative websites as reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.218.131 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before - see above. If you remain unconvinced, ask at WP:RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I second this. The source provides no evidence for its arguments that the phrase "It's OK to be white" was used in 2001 or 2005. Someone needs to re-read the source and edit this page accordingly. Saldor010 (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No. A reliable source is not required to provide evidence to your personal satisfaction. The article accurately explains what the ADL source says, and the ADL's findings are clearly attributed to the ADL. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Misleading sentences attributing the campaign to neo-nazis and white supremacists

The following sentences:

- "The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups"
- "The saying was later spread by Neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and The Daily Stormer"

Are both highly misleading, as they both make it sound like the campaign was subsequently spread exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the mentioned groups, when in reality they did not take over the whole campaign; they just joined in. It is an important distinction to make, and the least that should be done is including the word "also" in both sentences, like "The slogan has also been spread by Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups" (also the capitalization of Neo-Nazi should probably be consistent with Neo-Nazi page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Who aside from white supremacists have used the slogan? (With a citation, please). --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You'd know if you read the article. But to answer your question, the guy who created Minecraft used the slogan. [11] wumbolo ^^^ 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I would not have known had I read the article. Him "not being a white supremacist" is an opinion - one for which we do not have a RS. --ChiveFungi (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he is a white supremacist? One of these claims is far more extraordinary than the other, and I would suggest we try not to tacitly accuse people of being white supremacists. More to the point, should we go to every single celebrity page on Wikipedia and add the disclaimed "may be white supremacist" to all of them except those with a specific resource that somehow proves that person isn't a white supremacist? I hope you can see how this is a problem. Sagacity159 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Notch is a white supremacist - that would be a violation of WP:BLP. I'm merely pointing out that we cannot say in the article that he is not a white supremacist because we don't have any sources saying that. To use your analogy, we wouldn't go to all celebrity pages and add "not a white supremacist" - because we don't have sources for that in most cases. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: we wouldn't go to all celebrity pages and add "not a white supremacist" even if we had sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The article makes a clear distinction between 4chan users and white supremacist/Neo-Nazi groups, and it implies that it was started by 4chan, and then spread by Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, even though in reality it was started and spread by 4chan, and the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists (Daily Stormer, David Duke, etc.) joined the campaign. Unless you mean to say that 4chan is a Neo-Nazi or white supremacist group (and if this is the case, it should be clearly conveyed by the article with reliable sources), these sentences are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the current sources actually do mention that 4chan is popular with the alt right and white supremacists. So the fact that the article is saying that 4chan invented it and then it got picked up by white supremacists is a bit misleading. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very sensationalistic, to cherry-pick a single alt-right imageboard on 4chan and then say that 4chan as a whole is popular with the alt right. Similar to what the sensationalistic media did to Pepe the Frog. This is like screenshoting an alt-right blog post and claiming that the whole Internet is popular with the alt-right. Of course, that will influence what is due and what is undue for the article, and we have to follow it, but we can't judge something as a whole by a small percentage of individual minor events. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That's actually very standard practice in writing. Otherwise, every sentence would have to begin with "also". Let me cite User:Tony1/How to improve your writing:

Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them.

wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That often may be true, but I am convinced that in this case it distorts the truth. The message that can be easily drawn from these sentences is that 4chan invented it, and Neo-Nazis spread it, without 4chan's participation, or at least were far more significant driving force behind it. In fact, I created this entry after a discussion with a friend, who quoted one of these sentences, as he understood it that Neo-Nazis and white supremacists were the only ones who spread it. I believe that, while usually abusing "also" etc. may break the flow, in this case omitting it makes it easy to come to a conclusion that the whole affair was pretty much almost entirely a Neo-Nazi thing, which in turn makes it easy to dismiss it as Nazi propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is not misleading. It doesn't say that only white supremacists used the slogan. Readers who would draw that conclusion from those sentences are probably reaffirming their anti-white sentiment and not welcome at Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's misleading exactly because it doesn't specify the degree to which white supremacists took part. Ambiguity is bad on wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it is specifically misleading to you, also, your suggestion that "Readers who would draw that conclusion from those sentences are probably reaffirming their anti-white sentiment" is frankly ridiculous, and just as ChiveFungi stated, alienating editors. People don't need to have the same interpretation of an article as you to be "welcomed at Wikipedia". The suggestion was never that white people are victimized, but that the article is misleadingly suggesting that the campaign was influenced mostly, if not exclusively, by white supremacists. Which is not substantiated at all. Please try to be more civil, thank you. Sagacity159 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As the ADL documents, it was a white supremacist slogan for years before it was pitched on 4chan. Several outlets connect the 4chan campaign to the campaign to this incident at Boston College, where someone posted similar propaganda from the white supremacist publication American Renaissance. 4chan's /pol/ board is itself a a haven for white supremacists, and it's clear from accounts of the discussion that the message was intended to win converts to so-called "pro-white activism". This is the same euphemism David Duke uses to describe the Ku Klux Klan. In short: there's plenty of sourcing to support the notion that this was primarily a campaign spread by white supremacists. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: you only proved who /pol/ are, and /pol/ merely created the slogan. The slogan wasn't only spread on /pol/; it was spread in real life, using stickers and cards, and that's what gained significant news coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sagacity159: you contradict yourself in every sentence; stop attacking me and focus on the content. wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I'm not attacking you, and nor have I contradicted myself. I'm simply asking that you try not to be so toxic to the other editors. If that is somehow offensive to you, I would suggest you take a break from Wikipedia such that you can change your attitude. Not everything is a personal slight. However, when you directly suggest that any editor who doesn't agree with your position on an article is a white supremacist, that is personal attacks. Frankly, you need to quit trying to silence people. @Nblund: As for the phrase being used before, that's frankly irrelevant. The phrase is vague and generic. There's no evidence to suggest that this phrase was used specifically in pursuit of its history as a racist term. Regardless, your article actually has no source for the claim that it has a racist history as a term, and is a blog. Henceforth, I would dispute its veracity. As for your other incidents, they're of the same vein, stating things such as "I want you to love who you are don't apologize for being White". This is not, in any way, inherently racist. People taking offense to it does not make it racist either. Furthermore, it would be impossible to prove that people who wrote on the posters were actually part of the same group who posted the posters. I would suggest you find a more in-depth source before we include such claims.

However, when you directly suggest that any editor who doesn't agree with your position on an article is a white supremacist, that is personal attacks. I did not suggest that, and it's a personal attack to suggest something about me without providing evidence. wumbolo ^^^ 14:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: So if somebody sees a person repeating white supremacist slogans and they make the assumption that that person is a white supremacist, then in your opinion they wouldn't be welcome to edit Wikipedia? That's not a very kind thing to say to your fellow editors. Please be careful not to disrupt Wikipedia by alienating editors. --ChiveFungi (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. wumbolo ^^^ 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sagacity159: I think your personal opinion of whether or not the statement is racist is kind of irrelevant. Most sources describe this as a white supremacist slogan and describe it as a campaign that was intended to recruit support for white supremacist/alt-right ideology. No reliable source appears to contest that claim. Regarding the ADL: you can see the IOBTW tweet yourself here, and Wikipedia doesn't prohibit using any sources that use a blog-format. Nblund ^talk 19:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

- "The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups" - "The saying was later spread by Neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and The Daily Stormer"

Citation ? DavoANDbeer (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s known that the original post on 4chan was merely to point out the hypocrisy of media reporting on these sorts of things and that there was no link to Nazism or anything if the sort on the original post.

My understanding of the cited “spreading” by white supremacists of the phrase since then, to me, would be more characterised as being written about, rather then spreading. To apply it to another example, I’m sure people from the black panthers would have written about and discussed publicly the “black lives matter” movement. However this doesn’t really mean that it was “spread” by them, which has more of an implication that they were the driving force behind it. They may has written saying that they supported it, but it wasn’t a black panther initiative at all. In that scenario I don’t think it would be reported as it having been “spread” by the black panthers.

I propose that it be worded differently. Something along the lines of it being discussed and highlighted by those people. This would be a small point separate from the discussion of the original “spreading” of it, which in this case was actually done by 4chan /pop people, which there’s no evidence that they were white supremacists, and the original post said nothing to indicate that they were, and in fact did derail their agenda as being quite different from that of a white supremacist.

The one big issue we have here is citations. It’s fair that we should cite claims, but in this case there’s no link to the original 4chan thead because or followup threads, due to the nature of 4chan, these are deleted frequently and they’re anonymous.

So what happened was the media were called out for their bias and hypocrisy, so they then essentially fabricated this line that it was a white supremacist thing or that it implied not being white isn’t ok, which is incorrect. But this was then re-reported by media everywhere. And these reports are the only things we can cite on the issue.

So does anybody have any references to saved screenshots of the original posts? I remember seeing them back when this all started, but I can’t find them anymore. Rhino015 (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sinebot is right, this was just made by some guy to prove the leftist media is bullcrap (which he is right about). He's saying white people aren't inherently bad. You can mention neo-nazis and kkk members twisted his words, but don't make it so it looks like they invented it and it is thus racist.2601:245:C101:6BCC:0:0:0:1908 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ad hominem

WP:NOTFORUM no constructive edit discussion to be had here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Tucker Carlson on Fox News defended the campaign in a segment entitled "High school Fliers Create Shock and Horror". Carlson asked: "What’s the correct position? That it’s not okay to be white?",[23][24] but Newsweek writer Michael Hayden said Carlson was helping to spread neo-Nazi propaganda by defending the posters, saying the slogan is being promoted by neo-Nazis and white supremacists.[4]" - this is ad hominem fallacy, as always, what other to expect from progressives. Please write that's as hominem. Ah, you're on the same range[12] as the editor who said all the Nazis were killed by the Russians so there weren't any after WWII. Why should we take your word it's false? In any case, we'd need reliable sources, we should never add our own opinions to articles. So, no. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC) It's evident that it's ad hominem : a good person said an argument, and a leftist says "uR nAzI". We can objectively see the fallacy, why do we need a source for this? Ad hominem is defined as this!

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

in academia, you might also want to mention the happenings at Mount Saint Vincent University, source for information here: https://www.msvu.ca/en/home/aboutus/news/responding-to-racist-posters.aspx or you can just google "MSVU It's ok to be white" and the top link to the universities website should be the one I gave here. Phereiamnt (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Consensus"

My attempts to remove the scare quotes from around the term "harmless message" in the first paragraph of the article have been reverted based on spurious reasons, and I quote one such "pearl" by Grayfell: "Undid revision 931891890 by Aqualung (talk) Per sources, and sources are what we go by. Consensus appears to be against you also, so stop slow-burn edit warring and gain consensus on the article's talk page, if necessary." Specifically: 1. none of the "sources" listed (2 or 3) uses the term "harmless message" in scare quotes, and 2. "consensus" among editors is not a reliable indicator of the truthfulness or objectivity of any article. In conclusion, I am proceeding at removing the scare quotes from around "harmless message"; should you feel like reverting my corrective measure, please motivate your move here without making reference to "consensus," and please be as specific as possible. Generic "explanations" and hand-waving are not acceptable motivations. Aqualung (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does indeed appear to be against your change, and we live by consensus here. O3000 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is dependent on policy and guidelines, the guideline WP: SCAREQUOTES supports the removal. Can you include a policy or guideline based reason for their inclusion? --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking a little more at the article, there are multiple instances of the WP: SCAREQUOTES problem. Divisive under academia doesn't need to be quoted, we're already describing an opinion. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim that it was a harmless message was made on a racist forum and later adopted by neo-Nazi groups. Clearly we cannot state that it was a harmless message in Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You could easily say that at the time it certainly was. PackMecEng (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

How could you claim that? Those that started the campaign appear to have admitted their intention to stir racial animus. O3000 (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes that was their intention, to stir racial animus with a harmless message. What I was saying is the message, at that time, was mostly harmless. PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, if their intention was to stir racial animus, then it was not harmless by definition and they knew it-- unless one thinks stirring racial animus is harmless. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well no, if something is not racist and then becomes a racist symbol that does not mean it was always racist. Kind of like before the Nazis a swastika was not a racist symbol, now it largely is. Other examples would be Pepe the Frog or the OK gesture. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Attempting to bring this back on track (stupid edit conflicts), wikivoice is a valid concern, however I don't think scarequoting a statement fixes that. How about an attribution instead? Something like "in 2017, the expression was presented as a proof of concept that" (bold text added). --Kyohyi (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The phrase was in use for 16 years by white supremacists before this campaign. How can it be harmless? O3000 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some rephrasing may solve the problem. It has to be attributed as a claim. O3000 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Getting there. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that some innocuous symbol or word or phrase has been "appropriated" by some bad guys does not mean that that symbol/word/phrase should be banned. What do you do if the bad guys decide tomorrow to "appropriate" the word "mother," or "father," or your name, or God knows what other everyday word or phrase??!!! Will you stop using these words or phrases??!!! Will you be forced to change your name?!! Will you be labeling anyone who uses these words or phrases as "racists" or "Nazi" or whatever?! This is sheer insanity, and it NEEDS TO STOP! There is no word or phrase or symbol that is immune to this treatment! Someone should take a stand against this insanity, and Wkipedia, to the extent to which it fancies itself as an objective and impartial source of truth, should be the first one to take a stand against this hysteria. I thus urge Wikipedia editors to heed this advice by keeping a cooler head, and stop playing into the hands of the bad guys, or of the hysterical media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqualung (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. Bish appears to have solved this. Frankly, the scare quotes were most accurate -- but perhaps less appropriate for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ipswich

If you watch the video referenced by the statement "local residents responded by altering the stickers to read "It's OK to be kind"" you will find that a more accurate statement is, "One resident changed one sticker to say "It's OK to be kind"", sounds like the bigger picture was the council spending a weekend removing other stickers. I like the humanity here, but what is currently written does not reflect the facts presented in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.87.76 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The posters where not put up by an White Supremacist group. That is CNN propaganda, not a credible source. DustynBarlow (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving this entire paragraph

This paragraph, full of quotations, is more fitting for the "Reactions" section and does not belong in the lead.

The slogan has been spread by white supremacists including neo-Nazis.[4] Fox News host Tucker Carlson defended the slogan, stating that "being white [...] is not something you can control".[5] The Root compared it with the children's book It's Okay to Be Different and said, "white folks have taken that beautiful sentiment and distorted it to suit their infinite need to center themselves".[6] --Sebanderson (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Misquoted source

The article had this line before (added in revision 963458814):

The Guardian columnist Jason Wilson argued that It's okay to be white was "far right lies" devised by white supremacists in order to stoke overreaction from the left, sow confusion, embed a racist agenda in the mainstream media, and ultimately invite a backlash against anti-racist activism."

This makes it seem like the columnist said that "It's okay to be white" is a lie created by the far right. But let's look at the full paragraph from the source:

In a small way, the debacle in the Senate shows how wrong-headed this is. The far right lies, sows confusion, and hides its intentions in order to mainstream its messages. Careless, ignorant or actively sympathetic politicians help them.

The columnist is saying that the far right lies (using the verb to describe the far right's actions), but his words have been quotation-mined to make it seem like he opined that the statement of the slogan a lie. So I have removed the quotation. I would also think that misquoting a living person would fall afoul of WP:BLP, considering how the quotation was used. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2A00:EE2:C00:2800:7539:4A74:4BF9:2071 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

the "is a far-right slogan" part should be changed to "is an anti-racist slogan" because it does not imply any hatred towards non whites

 Not done. It's not the phrase itself, but the intent behind it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The intent behind it is to get people to imply that it is NOT OK to be white... It's not a statement made by the far right to imply racism, it's a statement made to out extremism on the left by getting to imply, as you just did, that the inverse of the phrase "It's OK to be white" is a normalized acceptable concept. The intent isn't to express hatred against other races, it's to out extremist views 2601:246:5680:E670:14BD:C0A9:CC57:A9EE (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias

typical IP complaining

The 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:EE2:C00:2800:7539:4A74:4BF9:2071 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Well, thank you for acknowledging the deep relationship between racism and the far right, but I'm afraid there are a large number a reliable sources saying that this is a far-right slogan, and we trust them more than we trust random IP addresses who make new posts at the top of talk pages, instead of at the bottom as is seemly. Also, the slogan has predominantly been used to racist affect, so it would be highly misleading of us to say it's an anti-racist slogan. Also, this is the second time you've requested this in the same day, so please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC) I think it is a bias. Attributing the statement "it's OK to be White" to the far-right and racism implies that the alternative statement "It's not OK to be white" is then not only a left wing statement, but also not racist and normalized. A less bias article would state that: "'It's OK to be white' is a political ploy to show that a certain segment of a political movement is willing to adopt an extremist position and suggest that it is NOT OK to be white." To imply racism or attribute it to the "Far-right" only shows that Wikipedia and it's editors, Liberals, Centrists, and everyone not Far-Right harbor the belief that it is, in fact, NOT OK to be white. 2601:246:5680:E670:14BD:C0A9:CC57:A9EE (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC) That's gotta be the most backwards logic I've come across so far on this website. WP:NOTGETTINGIT. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Well, as a white guy (or at least someone who looks and was raised white), I can confirm that it's not okay to be white. It's totally wrong, guys. Like seriously, stop being white. That's what all those (mostly white) liberals tell me, like every day... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

I don't think it's worth focusing too much on opinion pieces from talking heads unless they have secondary coverage; and when they do, we ought to rely on what the secondary coverage says and how they're characterized there. People like the ones you mentioned aren't experts and are basically professional opinion-havers and axe-grinders who weigh in on everything, making the same arguments in the same directions; what they say isn't generally significant or WP:DUE for random articles. --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)