Talk:It's okay to be white

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).

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

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)

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)

Sources for article

I know almost all sources have bias, even RS, but what about 'TheRoot' in particular this [1] 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 [2] 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. [3] 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)

David Duke has joined in

From his website[4]: "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)

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 [5] 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" [6] 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' [7]. If the word fits, use it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2018 (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. [8] 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)

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 ([9]), 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

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)

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)

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)