This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
White supremacists have used the phrase since at least the early 2000s, said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. [1]
Perhaps the term white supremacist is more precise than alt-right, which our own article admits, "... is ill-defined and has been used in different ways by academics, journalists, media commentators, and alt-right members themselves."
Per above, I'd tend to agree that sourcing emphasizes the fact that it's a white supremacist slogan more than it being an alt-right one, so that should probably be the descriptor in the first sentence of the lead; but I do think we should mention the connection the alt-right somewhere in the article, since the sources also discuss that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a sense that the slogan IOTBW did not originate in the trolling campaign that is currently the major focus of the article. So I have two proposals:
Show when and where the slogan has been used, prior to 2017
Describe the larger context of the slogan, while also explaining the poster campaign.
It may have been to stir up anti-black prejudice (if the trolls were white supremacists)
It may have been just make a fuss, like adolescents who abuse their freedom of speech to say or post the most outrageous things they can think of, on the grounds that they are "merely" asserting their rights
Google gave me a follow-up poll (which seems legitimate), indicating that -- no surprise! -- the wording of the Rasmussen poll question was significant. I've read elsewhere that variations of 10 to 30 percentage points are common, depending on how you load the questions.
Extreme example: "Do you want to save the planet?" vs. "Do you want to let energy companies pollute the air?"
I don't think the poll itself is meaningfully usable as a source, especially considering that it postdates the trolling campaign. Most secondary coverage that I'm aware of mostly framed it in the context of the trolling campaign and what Rasmussen's intent was. And you haven't presented any other sources so... no, I'd oppose everything you described here. If you want to argue there were significant non-trolling uses you would need very significant WP:SECONDARY coverage, which I'm skeptical actually exists because I suspect the "sense" you're getting is probably wrong. Even if you could find one or two examples of usage, that wouldn't shift the bulk of coverage - to rewrite the article the way you want, you would need truly overwhelming secondary coverage discussing the term with no reference to the trolling campaign, or significant coverage that overtly describes the existence of it as a non-trolling term in ways that make it clear that that is the main topic. Neither are in evidence at all in any of the searches I've done - coverage at all levels is pretty much 100% about the trolling campaign, so that's what our article ought to be, too. More generally, most of your proposals above are pretty light on sources, too. The article is fairly well-sourced and the sources are pretty clear on the term's origin, how it was used, and by who, so you really need to actually find sources for alternative formulations if you want to suggest major changes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aquillion, for your thoughtful and detailed comments. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.
I'm also glad that I waited for feedback before -- instead of? -- tackling all the changes myself.
I like the idea of attributing opinions such as "It's considered by XYZ to be an alt-right slogan" or "QRS calls it a white supremacist slogan."
I still think we ought to distinguish the trolling campaign -- which used the slogan -- to the controversy over whether (a) being white is okay in the same sense that 'black is beautiful' or (b) any praise of whiteness is racist.
I'm planning on addressing issue #1 first - and if that goes well, perhaps you might join me in writing about issue #2 next. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more clarity for non-US readers
The article seems to assume a US centric readership that has knowledge of US political and/or racial issues. For readers from mainland Europe or other countries where English is a second language, the article may not address the fundamental reason why this phrase (which seems to be obvious / self evident and in line with such as the United Nations Charter for Human Rights) is so polarizing. I have not looked for sources on this yet but am afraid that most will be mainstream media (Left wing or Right wing and nothing else) and so not unbiased. To summarize, most Europeans I have spoken with are baffled why this phrase is not considered self evident and I believe the article should address that in some way. I am open to suggestions for sources; possibly from unbiased and non US or Commonwealth socio-political academic sources.
85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
