Talk:It's okay to be white

Origin of the phrase

• 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."

I'm planning to change the first sentence to say

a slogan used to promote white supremacy ...

or

a white supremacist slogan ...

Okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

History and larger context

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:

1. Show when and where the slogan has been used, prior to 2017
2. 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?"

Cloud Research poll:

• https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-white-rasmussen-poll/

I'm not getting much traction here in comments. Does that mean I have carte blanche to make all my suggested edits? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

1. 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."
2. 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)

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)

The phrase itself is innocuous, but it was apparently adopted as a slogan for white nationalism and white supremacy. You might need to read the article on the dog whistle: "language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences." Dimadick (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)