Talk:Scott Adams/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intro

It seems to me that the characterization of Adams’s recent remarks as “racist” is debatable, at least if that word is accorded any commonly recognized meaning. I think it is more accurate and encyclopedic to characterize them as “incendiary.” Bobby Lawndale (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

He’s saying most black people hate white people. That’s making derogatory accusations based on race, i.e. racism. Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We have more than adequate Reliable Sources for the description racist. (Also, it's completely obvious.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What he said was that it was okay to be white. That is true not just of whites, but of any race. It is okay, and the racism comes in when somebody claims it is not okay to be green or blue or white or whatever race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Bobby Lawndale, while I may disagree with you, it's not unreasonable to have this debate. Racism is a very complex issue and has multiple definitions. It's very important that we write articles objectively, especially when it involves controversial content. And even more so in BLPs. This is an issue about objectivity and subjectivity in our writing. What are the facts (not opinions) and what do reliable sources say? In any case, I think the safest course of action right now is to attribute the characterization to the sources rather than putting it in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, I've made this edit to more accurately reflect the situation. However, it can always be changed back if a meaningful consensus is reached here to do that. Stoarm (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Stoarm - thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with your proposed change and would only note that I think the helping verb “have” is unnecessary. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stoarm: - I'd disagree with that edit. I think the bar for using WP voice in relation to WP:CONTENTIOUS labels is that many mainstream sources use the term without qualification (i.e. as they do here [1], [2], [3],[4]) and no mainstream sources offer a contradictory account. WP:DUE tells us to relay all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By qualifying our lanugage with the "most mainstream media" language, we're essentially giving weight to viewpoints from unreliable sources.

It's obviously good to have this debate as it's frought with WP:BLP issues, but we should remember that WP:BLP doesn't say we can't use WP:CONTENTIOUS labels. It just says we have to have really good and unchallenged sourcing if we're going to do that. I think in this case, we can say we have that. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.--RM (Be my friend) 14:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ummmmm... Nice words of wisdom. Care to expand? We have verifiable information here. There's got to be a rationale to exclude or qualify it. I don't think Bobby's rationale (i.e. "it's debatable") is really sufficient. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Girth Summit's edit reads pretty well. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Girth Summit’s edit seems accurate and encyclopedic. Thank you. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Seems better. I still think we could use unqualified language though. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Well done, Girth Summit. Also, great input here by everyone. Stoarm (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve changed it to “derogatory statements directed at African Americans”, since I think it’s not up for debate that they were derogatory, and directed at black Americans (he clearly says that he thinks most black people are racist, violent towards other races, and ungrateful. That’s pretty unambiguous racism) Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Still confused by what's "up for debate". "up for debate" by whom? Randos on Wikipedia? There doesn't seem like there's debate in the RS's. There shouldn't be here. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus: First, it is factually incorrect that his comments were directed at African Americans. As my edit to your changes points out, he specifically used the term "Black people" (multiple times), which of course casts a much wider net. You're mistakenly using the terms interchangably. Second, it is indisputable that reliable sources (not Wikipedia) describe his comments as "racist". Racist comments are inherently derogatory, but derogatory statements are not necessarily racist. In any case, the "racist" characterization is overwhelmingly supported by the refs and that fact is accurately reflected by the current wording. Stoarm (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Do the currently cited sources support "widely described as racist", or have we just cited three sources that say "racist"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just cited three sources that say "racist". This is why I don't understand why we're not speaking in narrative voice. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers: A good and fair question. Originally, it was "widely described as racist" in media coverage. A high percentage of reliable sources covering the story use the term "racist" to characterize the comments. Finding those that do not use the term appear to be the exception to the rule. I've read (and watched) many. It seems to be a clear consensus. Search for yourself and see what you find. How do you (and NickCT) suggest we address your concern? Do we need to include a lengthy list of reliable sources that use the term to describe the comments? Do you have alternate wording you prefer? I think the phrasing provides necessary context. Stoarm (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know why we’re insisting on using “widely described” when it’s obvious they were just racist, period. Dronebogus (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's insisting on anything. We're having a productive discussion in order to find a good solution. At issue is about whether characterizing the comments as racist should be in Wikipedia's voice or attributed to how so many sources are describing them. But I'm confused about something. You have said the comments were obviously racist, yet you have repeatedly removed the word "racist" and replaced it with "derogatory", as you did here and here. I'm also concerned that you invoked "African-Americans", when in fact the term he used was "Black people". You did not address this above. Stoarm (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Black/afro-American was a simple mistake. I’m using “derogatory” because I know “racist” will be a controversy magnet. Dronebogus (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It will be controversial. And folks familiar with WP:BLP will know that it should be controversial. That said, I only see a couple people arguing against it, and those people tend to be using non-policy based arguments (e.g. "it seems to me like it's debatable"). I think the absence of any policy based rationale against it, we should go ahead and use it. If we really aren't willing to just be bold, we should RfC. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus: I'm sorry, but it was more than a simple mistake. It was false, unsourced content inserted into a BLP. And like NickCT, I'm not concerned about controversy if the wording is appropriate. In any case, I appreciate your response and your objection is understandable. Stoarm (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

NickCT: I invited Girth Summit to give his thoughts based on the comments above about his edit. I would feel comfortable with the two of you jointly deciding the best solution. Stoarm (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

- Well it looks like someone put the right wording into the current version. Not to open up a can of worms here, but do we have a policy on whether it's "Black people" or "black people"? NickCT (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No policy. A Wikipedia proposal to mandate capitalisation of "Black" was rejected, in favour of case-by-case treatment and giving editors leeway to pick what style they prefer (I prefer capitalisation). DFlhb (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't really care whether it's capitlized or not. But, to paraphrase MJ, it doesn't matter (or shouldn't matter) if you're Black or White. The rule should be consistent. Rules like the AP's seem ludricous. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That matches my view, but the article already seems to reflect this. DFlhb (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a couple things here:

• The "rule" we have is MOS:RACECAPS, which endorses either capitalization or lower casing, as long as it's done consistently.
• I would prefer just "racist" over "widely considered racist". There are MOS:LABEL hardliners that might disagree with using the former, but I don't think we should be framing uncontested facts as opinions. I would be fine with "widely considered" if we rustled up more sources (6-8 or so) and cited them in a bundle.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Great policy cite! And great opinion. NickCT (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I cited MOS:RACECAPS once or twice... or five times: here, here, here, here, and (out of breath) here. But for the record, it's not a policy. It's a guideline. Stoarm (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also favour "racist commentary". My usual MOS:LABEL objections would only apply if the term was somehow added in the first sentence to describe him. DFlhb (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, your premise that what he said is an "uncontested fact" is factually incorrect. Read WP:VOICE fully. I will comment in more detail below about this. While I may personally feel the comments were absolutely racist (I'm the one who wrote it that way initially), I fully understand (and so should everyone else) that it's merely an opinion (subjective) and that not everyone agrees, believing instead that the statements were stupid or thoughtless or disgusting, etc., but not racist. Stoarm (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The "right wording" according to whom? Do you mean your preferred wording? That change was made by someone with 100 edits to their name who hasn't said a word in this discussion. What's the point of this discussion if someone with a total of eight edits in the past five years (before this) can just drop in to make a controversial edit, completely ignore this debate, then disappear? Therefore, reverted. Stoarm (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoa whoa! My preferred wording? How bout mine, DFIhb's, Breon's and Firefangle's? I agree w/ you there should have been discussion, but my sense now is that there consensus for the edit that was made. Isn't that all that matters? As to the 100 edits to their name, would you prefer if I changed it? I have lots of edits. NickCT (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said and, in fact, just made my exact point without even realizing it. My objection was to your use of the term "right wording" ("Well it looks like someone put the right wording"), which is why I then asked you if you meant "preferred wording"? Those two terms are obviously not the same thing. Any time someone has a preference, it doesn't necessarily mean it's right. (Everyone thinks their verison is the "right" or "correct" version. I think there's a great essay about it somewhere, which I'm sure you're familiar with.) Please be patient with determining consensus. It's a polarizing issue and has only been discussed here for a couple days. Keep in mind that I was the one who had the phrasing as you essentially want it now. I only rephrased it because of the good-faith, fair objections from others, so that it could be appropriately hashed out. I even told you that I trusted you and Girth to make the final decision jointly. Girth is obviously miles above me in terms of editing skills, experience, and position. I honestly do not care about Breon's opinion since, with only a hundred edits and only a few of them in the past five years, he brazenly made that controversial edit without even having the decency and common sense to participate in this discussion. I don't know if Girth will choose to provide any input, though. Stoarm (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

re Everyone thinks their verison is the "right" or "correct" version. - Yes. Obviously. So why insist on people using "prefered" versus "right" when those things are almost always interchangable? If you thought your prefered wording was wrong, you probably wouldn't prefer it.

re fair objections - I still have seen no policy based rationale for the wording you selected as a comprimise. Have you? Can you state it concisely? "It seems to me debatable" is not a policy based rationale.

We don't need to wait for Girth. This is a hot topic, so there's a rationale for us to make changes quickly. We've got consensus. Unless I hear policy based objections in the next few hours, I'll make the change. NickCT (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You still don't get it. They are clearly not interchangable. Maybe someone else can explain it to you. In any case, relax and be patient. Again, it's only been a couple days. The current prose is fully accurate and objective as it stands. The house isn't on fire. See below regarding WP:VOICE, which is a vital policy. Stoarm (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would vote for "black" and "white" throughout the article. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a simple decision, right? Almost black and white wouldn't you say? Or Black and White maybe? ugh oh.... NickCT (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, let's take closer look at WP:VOICE and really focus on what it's saying. In particular, everyone must open their minds and listen to what "Avoid stating opinions as facts" tells us. This clearly applies to this debate about how the comments by Adams should be characterized in the article. The guidance is unequivocal, telling us that "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action" (bolding added) but may state that 'genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.'" Read that last sentence again and really take it in, and read the lead of that article, which says, "Genocide, especially large-scale genocide, is widely considered to signify the epitome of human evil.[9][10][11][12]" (bolding added). If we cannot characterize in Wikipedia's voice that genocide is an evil action (even though most or all editors here would likely say that it absolutely is), then we most certainly should not characterize in Wikipedia's voice that Adams's comments were racist, even though there's wide belief by editors here that they were. Why? Because we're writing an encylopedia and it doesn't matter how we personally feel about it or how we would characterize it. We all fully know the difference between objective and subjective information. There should be no question, regardless of how horrific Adams's comments may have been, that it's subjective to call them racist. But we can most certainly say, and should say, that they've been widely reported, or widely described, as racist, because we have verifiable evidence (all the available reliable sources) to support it. There are plenty of people who believe the comments were not racist (because of the common definitions of racism) and so instead choose to desribe them in other terms, such as controversial, polarizing, provocative, stupid, wreckless, insensitive, etc. And of course the OP here said they should not be characterized as racist, but instead as "incendiary". Would I characterize the comments as racist. Yes, absolutely. In fact, I already did when I edited the article previously. But I changed it to attribute the characterization to what was overwhelmingly being reported by reliable sources. So, is genocide evil? Yes? Can we say that in Wikiedpia's voice? No. Stoarm (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 15:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

“Racist” is not an opinion like “evil”, even if it’s frequently just used as a generic insult like “fascist” is. It’s prejudice or discrimination based on race. Adams made comments that said most black people had negative traits xyz, which is explicitly, objectively racist. And I’m going to hazard that most of those uncited “plenty of people” are far-rightists who want to twist words to whatever works for them. Dronebogus (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you think that "racist" is not an opinion, but that "evil" is? With all due respect, do you really not understand how non-sensical that sounds (not you, but your argument)? You're showing a very basic misunderstanding of the difference between facts and opinions. Obviously, describing someone or something as "racist" is an opinion. The definition you casually inserted into your comment ("It’s prejudice or discrimination based on race") is merely your definition (I don't see a source). Merriam-Webster's definition of "racist" is "having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race (see race entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" or "of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another". Cambridge says it's "someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result". Those definitions, which are common, cannot necessarily be applied to Adams. Do you know what his beliefs are, or do you just know what his words were in that video? Again, my personal opinion is that his comments were clearly racist. But my belief doesn't matter one bit, and although in the minority, many people disagree with me (and you and others here). Have you read some of the many message boards and blogs discussing this particular point. What actually is an indisputable fact is that many reliable sources describe his comments as racist. So that's why, per the policy I presented above, we should say that, and not put it in Wikipedia's voice. It's not for an encyclopedia to make that conclusion and state is as fact, but rather to cite who is saying it (reliable sources). I believe this is perfectly in line with the WP:NPOV policy and its subsection WP:VOICE. Remember, I initially edited the article to say that his comments were racist, in Wikipedia's voice. Then I heard objections and looked into more. I was hesitant to change it. But I read the WP:VOICE policy very carefully. If there are edtiors with a long, reputable history here who've demonstrably dealt with this particular issue in the past, I welcome them to join this discussion and honestly critique my viewpoint on this. I'm focusing on policy and caution. Stoarm (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

After briefly communicating with Doug Weller today and learning of his life situation, I've decided to drop out of this discussion. Learning about what's going on with him and reading all the beautiful comments on his talk page from people who obviously love and respect him has hit me hard. It's really put this issue we're debating here into perspective. I know the intention of everyone here is to do what's best for this project. Good luck. Stoarm (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, our thoughts and best wishes go out to Doug. Since we've waited and there doesn't seem to be any further objection, I'm going to make the change. NickCT (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that cannot happen since you have not at all countered, or even addressed, the lengthy policy evidence presented to justify your desired change. As detailed above, WP:NPOV and its specifically relevant subesection WP:VOICE are vital policy, particularly with regard to biographies of living persons, that must be respected. The policy is unequivocal in explaining how to present this particular type of controversial content. Equally important, WP:CONSENSUS reminds us that "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", and that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." (emphasis added). Of course, all of this is prefaced by the indisputable understanding that consensus is not "the result of a vote", but rather the "quality of the arguments" in line with established policies and guidelines. The good thing is that your objection is very specific: you want Wikipedia to say, in its own voice, that Adam's controversial comments were racist, rather than attributing that characterization to those who are saying it. The policy tells us directly that "these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views" (emphasis added). That's precisely what we're doing currently. Therefore, I'm not sure why you're continuing to fight so hard to get the encylopedia itself to call his comments "racist", in violation of NPOV, and eliminating the well-sourced attribution. Our job isn't to shove a point of view down the throats of our readers, but rather to neutrally present the verified information, via the reliable sources, and let them decide for themselves how they would describe it. Stoarm (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it can happen actually. You are at present the only person pushing your position in opposition to several editors. This is despite the fact that you 1) said you're dropping from the conversation (apparently not true) and 2) said that the position wasn't really yours to begin with (I think it's pretty clear that it now is).

re WP:VOICE - We make unqualified subjective statements on WP all the time. If I wrote "The Mona Lisa is an important work of art", that's an opinion, right? There's no objective measure of importance. And yet, we can write that b/c lots of sources say it's true, and no sources counter it. If we had to write "According to many sources, the Mona Lisa is...." all the time, WP would just sound dumb.

We're not shoving our POV down readers' throats. We're shoving the view of the overwhelming number of reliable sources. Trying to qualify the viewpoint of mainstream sources is basically supporting WP:FRINGE.

This is a gentle reminder that you don't WP:OWN this article and shouldn't revert changes made by multiple editors.

And if you want people to read, avoid walls of text. NickCT (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't overcome the key issue: what the policy says. It is demonstrably false that I'm the only one in favor of of attributing the characterization to the sources. As anyone can see above, Girth Summit took the exact same position with this edit ("Dilbert was dropped from numerous newspapers after Adams published a video including comments that were widely described as racist") and there are replies from multiple editors in support of it, including your partial support ("Yes. Seems better. I still think we could use unqualified language though."). So, that's Girth Summit, Bobby Lawndale, 70.163.208.142, Stoarm, and, in-part, NickCT. Therefore, your claim that I'm the "only person" taking this view is simply false. My deciding to re-enter the discussion is obviously a red herring that has nothing to do with the content dispute, and it is of course my right. In terms of changing my position, of course I changed it. Because I kept an open mind to the objections of others and therefore researched and reconsidered the approach in order to protect the article's credibility. So, what's your point? That editors should never change their minds about an editing decision, even when presented with information that clearly justifies, and necessitates, the change? The "other stuff" bells ring every time an editor says, we do such and such "all the time". With regard to the Mona Lisa (which I've seen in person; it's inspriring), its status in the art world has been verifiably studied and documented by experts in the field over many years. And you'll note that the article says " it has been "described as...", rather than "it is...". With Scott Adam's comments, no one can read his mind to know what he was thinking or intended when he made those statements. And unlike da Vinci's work, there are indeed sources that counter the "racist" claim about what Adams said, contending that it was obviously "hyperbole" or "exaggeration" used solely to make an important point. You and I may think that's nonsense, but it doesn't matter what any editors think or feel. What matters is the policy. It's simple and clear: "these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views" (emphasis added). The policy also is abundantly clear that assertions that are contested or controversial – which these obviously are – cannot be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. You said, "We're not shoving our POV down readers' throats. We're shoving the view of the overwhelming number of reliable sources." Did you even read those words before you clicked "Publish changes"? You actually admitted that "shoving the view" down the throats of our readers is what you want to do. In all seriousness, you should not be editing BLPs if that's something you actually believe is appropriate. Invoking OWN is another red herring and distracts from the issue at hand. BLPs have strict standards and core policies that cannot simply be ignored. But that is precisely what you are doing. When Girth Summit made the original edit, he no doubt understood and adhered to the core policy when he chose to use wording which gave attribution to the sources. Girth is a very experienced, accomplished, and knowledgeable editor and administrator. Finally, if you consider responses of a paragraph or two to be "walls of text", there's not much I can do for you. Perhaps you're not a fan of reading books, magazines, and newspapers. And, of course, the responses are to your laundry list of various points. Stoarm (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted Stoarm's edit. Time to stop edit warring, Stoarm, and it's also time to stop with the personal attacks: "Perhaps you're not a fan of reading books, magazines, and newspapers." Come on now. I'll add that in my opinion NickCT is a very experienced, accomplished, and knowledgeable editor also (even though they're utterly wrong about Black/black!). Drmies (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not explain why you feel you're justified in disregarding a core policy, disagree with Girth Summit's edit, or did not in any way address the merits of the arguments. Also, I'd say it's a bit dramatic – and, by definition, incorrect – to characterize a very mild poke about reading materials as a personal attack; it was no more a personal attack than his criticism of my "walls of text", and less inappropriate than your rude edit summary. In any case, my primary concern is being careful about how we present controversial content in a BLP. Stoarm (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stoarm: - I'm not hating on ya bud and I think you're asking an important question (i.e. the WP:BLP and WP:VOICE concerns are legitimate), but I've gotta point out that I ended my comment with "avoid walls of text", and then you responded with a wall-of-text. I do enjoying reading books, magazines, etc. The difference between those and your responses is that the books/magazines I read are typically well-written, insightful, and make sense.

Regardless, if you really want to push on this, I suggest we just RfC. I'd be happy draft one or help you draft one. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

First, do not call me "bud". Frankly, it doesn't matter how long you prefer my, or any editor's, comments to be. I'll write as much as I think is necessary to reply to what's written to me. If you make X number of points, I will give X number of responses. When we're dealing with controversial content in a BLP, the explanations should be more detailed. Let's see if Drmies will make the same type of comment to you that he did to me about your "personal attack" ("the difference between those and your responses is that the books/magazines I read are typically well-written, insightful, and make sense"). Of course it's an important question that's being debated; we're talking about core policy. Yet you and Drmies – who gave zero reasoning for the revert beyond "I disagree" – apparently think it's acceptable to disregard those policies. If you're serious about doing the right thing, then start an RfC and simply ask if the "racist" statement should be in Wikipedia's voice or not; let's see how other editors interpret WP:VOICE and WP:BLP. Stoarm (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I retract my "personal attack". I hope you understand though, people will engage with you more if you avoid the walls-of-text. Saying we gave "zero reasoning" seems a bit like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

This is now the third time you've lectured me about the length of my comments. You made the point and I addressed it, so hopefully you can move on. Please focus on content, a vital part of our dispute resolution policy. Read what I wrote again; I said that Drmies was the one who gave zero reasoning (for the revert), not you. Stoarm (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Look..... I really don't mean to lecture you, but your statement was "you and Drmies – who gave zero reasoning". Grammar would suggest the statement applied to both of us. Plus you've awkwardly replied halfway through my comment. Walls-of-text, poor grammar, and awkward splitting don't aid in clarity. I'm just trying to help you provide clearer and more concise arguments. As I said earlier, I do think you have valid point worth stating. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work up an RfC within the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stoarm and Drmies: - Hi guys - Wanted to give you and oppurtunity to review this RfC before launching. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to violate WP:BRD by restoring the bold edit that was reverted (multiple times), start the RfC and get consensus for your desired change. Provided the RfC is conducted properly, I will accept whatever result is reached. Stoarm (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't be disengenuous. You know darn well your prefered wording was reverted way more often. I've set up the RfC. Thanks for rejoining the conversation. Would have been nice if it were in a slighty less fractious manner. NickCT (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks and focus on content. You are the original editor to make this very contentious edit, which to that point had stood unchallenged since it was added. You said you were going to start an RfC, but haven't done so. You don't need anyone to "approve" it. You didn't hear from Drmies or me about it, so you voluntarily chose no to implement it. Why? Stoarm (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying you're disengenuous isn't a personal attack. If you feel otherwise, I can show you where to file at ANI.

Let's understand what's happened here. You got upset b/c everyone was reverting your preferred wording and asked for an RfC (which you really should have made yourself). I kindly made it for you, then, as a courtesy, I offered to let you review it (which as you point out I didn't have to do). You didn't bother responding, then, after not talking for weeks, suddenly you're back edit warring again and apparently now trying to blame others for your failings. You see your behavior right? You get how that makes everyone think about you? NickCT (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That poll

The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine Doug Weller talk 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a more in-depth explainer on It's okay to be white in relation to this controversy, which might be worth using as a source. Many sources just briefly cite the ADL to provide context, but this goes into much more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, it's sad that so much neutral language has been taken up as slogans by controversial movements that even some innocent words have become taboo. Vacosea (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Taboo according to whom? It is okay to be white ... we can argue about what that means, in theory and in practice -- and you can point to odious individuals of every race and color and every political hue -- I don't see the point here about it being 'taboo' -- but that's your opinion Fishing Publication (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't oppose including this information in the article -- but it seems unlikely to me that the average Joe is familiar with this piece of Internet history -- or enough to influence poll responses, etc.

Also, the ADL describes the origin of the phrase as "an alt-right trolling campaign" if I'm not mistaken. What is the difference between a 'trolling campaign' and political activism ? Fishing Publication (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read this article and It's okay to be white, along with their relevant reliable sources, so that you will understand the difference between fact and opinion with regard to this issue. Stoarm (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, does that mean you still disagree with my revisions? I've read the article, we're talking about a specific sentence of prose from the article. Haven't we discussed the difference between fact and opinion re: 'seemingly innocuous' ? Fishing Publication (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Stoarm, Black Kite:

Since you continue to revert my revision without providing any justification (other than that you have reverted it in the past), and you (Stoarm) have haughtily instructed me 'you are to take it to the talk page' (notwithstanding my relevant comments on several talk pages which you have still failed to address), please explain (as I have requested now for many days and nights) any sustained objection you may have to my proposed wording. I have also addressed the involved administrator to serve as a third opinion. I must say that quite aside from my obvious and deserved (on your part) respect for your contributions to Wikipedia and good record which far outlasts mine that I can only regard your conduct in this matter as unwelcoming and the degree of your previous rebuke quite unnecessary.

Regardless with thanks and appreciation for your continued work, Fishing Publication (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The content is accurate, reliably sourced, properly attributed, and provides necessary context. Dozens of editors have contributed to that paragraph and none, until you, objected to that particular portion which had stood for weeks. Your recent changes were quickly reverted by multiple editors, with edit summaries provided, yet, as Black Kite pointed out, you chose to repeatedly edit war and restore content instead of going to the talk page and achieving consensus. Your one argument that "this revision stood for multiple days" isn't helpful to your effort because it actually makes the point that it stood only for a short time, which, for accuracy, was just a day and a half. Stoarm (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Again you are only talking about how the quote is factual, i.e. the ADL actually issued this statement (and you're still throwing around buzzwords like 'accurate' and 'reliably sourced' -- yes indeed, the article uses a primary source to provide evidence for a quotation). I don't dispute any of this, and indeed I have never argued that the quotation should be removed, only that needlessly biased and editorialized prose on the part of Wikipedia (that does not even come from the ADL's statement) should be altered.

To your point none, until you, objected to that particular portion, actually two editors in the past objected to the quotation albeit on different grounds (Talk:Scott Adams#ADL is not a Neutral organization, Talk:Scott Adams#Intro); shouldn't you know this, as you have participated in one of these discussions ?

You are the one who immediately resorted to edit warring after failing to continue a discussion you started on the subject. How can you accuse me of 'choosing to repeatedly edit war' when I responded to your comment on Discospinster dealing with your points of disagreement and advising you to respond if you had any further disagreement -- and if not I would restore my revision with your alterations as discussed? You did not acknowledge this comment (and have yet to); I waited two full days before proceeding to restore my revision, whereupon you reverted one hour later. Since you had been editing in the intervening period, and since I had linked your user page 'pinging' you to alert you to the continued discussion, I should like to ask what motivated your absence from the discussion page and seeming unconcernedness with progress towards a consensus-based resolution of our disagreement? Such behavior, no matter its motivation, has compelled me to reiterate myself multiple times and at exponentially increasing length. And if we are to be counting grievances, I should note that on the User talk:Discospinster page, in what seems now in retrospect to constitute the opening volley of the late unpleasantness between us, without any provocation by similar behavior on my part, you made deeply uncharitable and insulting personal accusations about me: Unfortunately, Fishing Publication is using their apparent personal biases to infect the article

I hope that you will understand now -- as I stated in the first paragraph -- that I am not seeking to remove any content, nor do I have any disagreement with you on the merit of the ADL's quotation (which you continue to reverently describe as 'properly attributed', 'provides necessary context', 'reliably sourced') -- and because my point of disagreement with you purely concerns the wording or prose you are left with a certain number of options and not one of these is to continue insisting upon the veracity of content, as you have in all of your previous comments on this matter, the inclusion of which I have never challenged.

Should you not now either: 1) adopt the position that such verbiage as 'seemingly innocuous' is not un-encyclopedic, and does not make any presuppositions or apply any kind of impetus or emotional peer-pressure on the reader -- presumably you could here argue about the precise meaning of such relevant policies as WP:NPOV or WP:MOS#FLOWERY or 2) adopt the position that some parts of the wording are not acceptable, and that some parts remain acceptable, and proceed to argue about which parts (specific words? phonemes?) fall into each category, or finally 3) adopt at long last my position that the wording as it (alas!) now stands is indeed unacceptable as POV, but should be replaced or altered in a different way than I have proposed.

Of course, if you carve a middle path I will not fault you for you have already proven your logical and rhetorical inventiveness of much greater scope and depth than my own.

I hope that you will read and understand my comments and that this will help us to mutual understanding. Respectfully, Fishing Publication (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NickCT, since you've been active on this page, I should like to see your opinion on this. Cheers Fishing Publication (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I responded to your RfC below. Is that enough? NickCT (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's enough, maybe I misspoke, when I say "should like" I don't mean a demand or whatever Fishing Publication (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Corrected a bad-faith misquote of his tweet on the "angry young male" problem

What he actually said: "When a young male (let's say 14 to 19) is a danger to himself and others, society gives the supporting family two options: 1. Watch people die. 2. Kill your own son. Those are your only options. I chose #1 and watched my stepson die. I was relieved he took no one else with him." How it was quoted here: "Adams tweeted that if parents believe their son poses a danger to themselves and others, they have only two options, either they should murder their own son or watch him die and maybe kill others." The editor changed "society gives them only 2 options" to "they should." And they omitted entirely the fact that he was speaking about his own (tragic) personal experience. This is bad-faith editing. I changed it to reflect what he actually said. Frellthat (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of editing in bad faith. But I agree that your change better reflects the LA Times source (as well as TheWrap edit: and The Mercury News), which seem to be the only two three non-clickbaity sources that covered Adams' tweet; these articles quote him almost in full, including society gives the supporting family two options. DFlhb (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) updated 23:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and expanded it, though forgot to note in my edit summary that I added a few details ("fentanyl", "2022 mass shooting"), from the already-cited sources. DFlhb (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why break it up the way you did? By separating the part about his own son with the words "He says his comments were inspired by his own stepson," esp with the present tense "says," you're making it sound like he said that in a later comment, as a clarification or explanation. He said it at the same time, in the very same tweet. Frellthat (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC : Use "seemingly innocuous" in Wikipedia's voice or attribute?

There has been a prolonged debate about the validity of the wording the Anti-Defamation League said the seemingly innocuous phrase began being used online in 2017 as part of an alt-right trolling campaign and is associated with the white supremacist movement versus according to the Anti-Defamation League, a non-governmental organization, the phrase originated online in 2017 as part of an "alt-right trolling campaign" and as such is associated with the white supremacist movement to describe the phrase It's okay to be White in the context of this article. The debate, insofar as it has actually taken place, centers around whether wording such as "seemingly innocuous" to describe a political slogan should be written in Wikipedia's voice or attributed to its origin.

Should the desription in lead read as either;

Option A : "... the Anti-Defamation League said the seemingly innocuous phrase began being used online in 2017 as part of an alt-right trolling campaign and is associated with the white supremacist movement."

or

Option B : "... according to the Anti-Defamation League, a non-governmental organization [attempting to salvage the RFC by boldly removing this, as this is not what discussion is actually about, and no one seems to want it. revert if you disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk)], the phrase originated online in 2017 as part of an "alt-right trolling campaign" and as such is associated with the white supremacist movement."

Please tell us what you think below! If you could format your response in the following way, it would be helpful.

• Support Option A - This option is great Unqualified123 (talk)
• Support Option B - I love qualifying stuff. QualifyIt (talk)
• Support Alternative - Why not attribute the existing prose? ThinkOutsideTheBox (talk)

Thanks in advance for your input. Fishing Publication (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (seemingly innocuous)

• Support Option B; such verbiage as 'seemingly innocuous' is un-encyclopedic, doubly so in Wikipedia's voice, and makes certain moral presuppositions which are completely unnecessary, while this revision would not remove any content, nor do I disagree on the merit of the ADL's quotation (which is indeed 'properly attributed', 'provides necessary context', 'reliably sourced' and so on) -- because the changes my revision would make purely concern the wording or prose any opposition is left with a certain number of options and not one of these is to continue insisting upon the veracity of the content or the source. Fishing Publication (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Tentative Support Option B - Firstly, let me say whoever formatted this RfC is frickin awesome. Very well done! Second, is this debate really a debate really over "seemingly innocuous"? It's such a seemingly innocuous phrase. But seriously..... I'm inclined to agree with the nom that "seemingly innocuous" is basically unencyclopedic narrative. You wouldn't find that kind of wording in Britanica. Is there a counter argument for maintaining it? Am I missing some other issue in this debate? NickCT (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - With all due respect, the RfC statement is horribly flawed and confusing. The statement doesn't even correlate to the options. Look at NickCT's Rfc. There are two statements: one with attribution and the other without. Attribution is not even an issue in this RfC because both options are attributed to the ADL. All you're doing is removing the words "seemingly innocuous" and adding "a non-governmental organization". This shows why you cannot simply copy and paste someone else's design. You should follow the advice for RfCs and get an experienced editor to review and advise before posting. I would suggest taking this down until the other RfC is settled, which may be very soon. By the way, it's a documented and reliably-sourced fact that the term "It's okay to be White" was designed to be appear innocuous. That's the entire point of the strategy to use it. That fact provides vital and necessary context. Also, you are again trying to insert "a non-governmental organization" even though Black Kite told you, as I did, that it's "it's totally pointless"... and you then agreed. Stoarm (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree that it was designed to be appear innocuous. Doesn't necessarily mean "seemingly innocuous" is encyclopedic language, right? Also agree this RfC could have been clearer. @Fishing Publication: - I'm not sure whether the debate is about "non-governmental organization" or "seemingly innocuous". Can we maybe have more options that seperates those two things? NickCT (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we all agree on that fact, that the phrase/slogan "It's okay to be White" was very strategically designed to be appear innocuous to the average person. There are numerous refs that show evidence of the strategy. This whole thing with "non-governmental organization" needs to be thrown out the window. As Black Kite said, it's pointless and would only serves to completely confuse editors. It's very simple: readers can link to the ADL article if they want more details, as Black Kite stated. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the real issue, which is the term "seemingly innocuous". Our readers of this encylopedia must be aware of the purposely innocuous nature of the phrase, It's okay to be White, because it ties together the entire issue of the poll and what it led to with Adams. IMO, an RfC is not even needed for this issue. It's simply about wording and maybe the use of some quotation marks. There are also refs in It's okay to be white that can be used for additional verification. Stoarm (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  You don't think saying "an alt-right trolling campaign" makes it obvious that the phrase is not innocuous? Seems like you and Black are trying to bludgeon the point here. While we seem to agree (surprisingly) on what the term actually is, I feel like you guys are trying to soapbox about it. Anyways, fundementally I just don't think the language is encyclopedic. Though I do agree on the NGO thing. My ideal would be for "... according to the Anti-Defamation League, the phrase originated online in 2017 as part of an "alt-right trolling campaign" and as such is associated with the white supremacist movement." NickCT (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't want to 'take apart' your comment and reply to each portion, because I don't think you're entirely wrong-headed and in my experience a response in that style serves as a complete rebuke, which I don't feel is necessary at all, but here are a few points

Attribution is not even an issue in this RfC because both options are attributed to the ADL.

I felt like I really had to nail down this point re: your earlier remarks The content is accurate, reliably sourced, properly attributed ... I still believe that "according to the ADL" is honest attribution only for a statement of plain fact, which this is not. Something like "According to the National Weather Service, the 'feels-like' temperature was ..."

All you're doing is removing the words "seemingly innocuous" and adding "a non-governmental organization"

I have made a few other changes; I think "alt-right trolling campaign" should be in quotes ... I don't really know what the difference is between a "trolling campaign" as the ADL calls it and activism which any political movement or interest group engages in.

Also, you are again trying to insert "a non-governmental organization" even though Black Kite told you, as I did, that it's "it's totally pointless"... and you then agreed.

What is this 'told' business about? The point of a talk page or an RFC is to establish consensus.

In my original edit which you immediately reverted without explanation as "unnecessary and inappropriate" which is an invitation to edit-war for clarification if there ever was one I sought to describe the ADL according to the lead section of that very article. You and another editor, for reasons you still have not explained, objected specifically to the description of the ADL as a Jewish non-governmental organization and went on to accuse me of apparent personal biases which you also have not explained.

If you oppose to including a short description of the subject to provide context and a justification of why their opinion is relevant, be my guest, but I believe it's common practice.

I would suggest taking this down until the other RfC is settled

WP:RFC: There is no ... limit to the number of simultaneous RfCs that may be held on a single talk page

By the way, it's a documented and reliably-sourced fact that the term "It's okay to be White" was designed to be appear innocuous.

To whom? This is a question of place and time, of opinion and belief. It's still a statement of opinion. Would you describe the phrase Black Lives Matter as "seemingly innocuous" or "designed to appear innocuous"? Why not? What would this imply?

All you're doing is removing the words "seemingly innocuous" and adding "a non-governmental organization". This shows why you cannot simply copy and paste someone else's design.

I don't see what this has to do with it. Don't they say that consistency is the spice of life? Anyway a nice way to jab at me for copying which admittedly I did but I don't see how different it could reasonably have been

With all due respect, the RfC statement is horribly flawed and confusing.

Well I don't really think so, and if you want to convince me, you should explain why Fishing Publication (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Please end this RfC. It is excessively flawed. See "Reasons and ways to end RFCs", number 2.. Stoarm (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Didn't you already ask me to end the RFC ? I am making changes to the statement and options as many editors have requested Fishing Publication (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you'd need to end it and then start a new one since this one already has responses. You could ask Redrose64 for advice. Also, see WP:RFC/A for examples. Stoarm (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really plan on taking it down, there is activity on the page and lots of contributors commenting which is a fertile environment for the RfC to take place. If you want to participate in discussion and consensus-building I gave you many opportunities at User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Discospinster where you made personal accusations and here Talk:Scott Adams#That poll where you also edit-warred to remove a section and place recent comments in older sections of the page. Fishing Publication (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support option A - I refrained from voting before, as there was doubt over the validity of the RFC but, as nobody has knocked it on the head, I'll do so now. The deceptive nature of the phrase is clearly and succinctly explained by the phrase "seemingly innocuous" and we have sources for it. Omitting it could lead readers to wonder what the nature of the trolling actually is. I wouldn't object to it being placed in quotes if we want to make it clear that the specific phrase derives from the ADL but I strongly dislike option B as that explains nothing and just obfuscates the matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Deceptive? According to whom? I think this is your opinion (and that of the ADL to whom it should be attributed ) -- is the statement a lie, in that these nebulous 'trolling' groups do not actually believe that it is O.K. to be White? What should Option B explain that it doesn't ? Fishing Publication (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't play games like this. We are not here for your amusement. DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not playing games, guy, I'm responding to your comments which I feel are not less strongly worded than mine.. 'seemingly innocuous' is a statement of opinion, it should be attributed at least. If my position isn't clear I will give a few examples of what may be implied by describing the slogan as seemingly innocuous in Wikipedia's voice:

  • The slogan/name 'Black Lives Matter' is also seemingly innocuous. Taking an editorial position about the 'true intentions' of political groups establishes a precedent. You could see something like (in bizarro world where Wikipedia has a Right-leaning bias) the seemingly innocuous phrase Black lives matter was invented by race-baiting troll groups ...
  • The slogan 'It's okay to be White' is seemingly innocuous, because there is nothing wrong with that idea. Therefore, Wikipedia adopts the position that it is 'okay to be White'.
  • The slogan 'It's okay to be White' is seemingly innocuous but (and stating this as an encyclopedic fact, on a tangentially related article, without strong sourcing) is actually a code for XYZ (whatever racist sentiment Scott Adams was expressing) This resembles Satanic panic rhetoric of the 90s or more recent boomer scares over texting lingo, even recent book bans in red states in the U.S..

  Do you see where I'm coming from ? Fishing Publication (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't oppose the alternative you proposed, which would be to attribute the phrase (more clearly) to the ADL, but I don't believe that According to the ADL, the seemingly innocuous phrase... is clear and unreserved attribution. Fishing Publication (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support option A - I think DanielRigal read my mind. The simple descriptor "seemingly innocuous" provides excellent and vital context about the slogan, and it has strong refs for verification. Eliminating it would obviously confuse many of our readers. Why would we even consider removing one of the major pieces of the clarity puzzle? If there's a concern about attribution, then simply follow DR's suggestion and put it in quotes so readers know it originated with the ADL. I don't understand why this issue is even being debated, or what useful purpose the B option would have. All it does, literally, is eliminate two key words. Stoarm (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support option A. I do think this aids clarity. White supremacists deliberately adopted an "innocuous" phrase, then associated it with propaganda ("it's okay to be white - stop white genocide") so that the media would condemn the phrase. These trolls were hoping that "normies" would see the media as "anti-white" for condemning an "innocuous" phrase, and would then get radicalized. That's ~basically what happened here! I don't find it unencyclopedic, because its innocuousness is central to the point of that trolling campaign. Most readers are unlikely to know this stuff (~60% of Enwiki visitors are non-US). DFlhb (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC) retracting, see below 22:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Alternative. The article makes it sound as if the ADL had something to do with this poll. I don't think that the poll said anything about the ADL's opinion, and the respondents probably did not know the history of the phrase. It is better to just say what the poll said, and say what Adams said. Roger (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"The respondents probably did not know the history of the phrase". Pretty big assumption to make. The 'it's okay to be white' phrase had its own Wikipedia page (which has been filled with lots of secondary sources describing its origins) for six years before this poll, so it's not like the phrase or its context were obscure.

"It is better to just say what the poll said." The poll, like most other political events in history, did not occur in a vacuum. Removing all context in the name of "avoiding subjectivity" actually does a disservice to the reader. 140.32.208.172 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You are joking, right? There are 6 million WP articles, and about 5 million of them are on obscure topics. It appears that Adams did not even know the history of the phrase. Roger (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should make a different article about the poll, to discuss where it comes from, why it was done, and who thinks what about it. Have we quoted anyone who thinks that the poll question was valid? No? Then why should we insert one person or group's opinion about the poll question, without quoting other, contrary opinions? Is that the Wikipedia voice? This editorial activism is really not useful to anyone. Yes, it would be much better simply to report what the poll said, and what Scott Adams (the subject of the article) said about it. Frellthat (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Alternative. I believe it's important to remember that as an editor, I must lean on verifiability and WP:NPOV more than my personal opinions. In this vein, I like to play the opposite game to see if I'm stating the facts neutrally, which, in this case means attempting to apply "seemingly innocuous" to Black Lives Matter and then determine if that is neutral.
  If however, a reliable source is commenting on the intent of the creation of the phrase, "It's OK to be white" and naming it seemingly innocuous, then we're just stating facts.
  If consensus agrees that "seemingly innocuous" is important context for understanding the phrase, then it should be in quotation marks at the very least. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 'seemingly inoccuous' in Wikipedia's voice. I don't know exactly how we should phrase this, and I'm not minded to !vote in favour of any of the options proposed, but we should not be making subjective judgments of this nature in Wikipedia's voice. In our voice, we should stick to the facts, without commentary; it's also OK to report on hat response to those facts has been, but that should be attributed to the responder. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've tried, but can't come up with any counterargument to this (or similar comments). Striking my vote, since I agree. — DFlhb (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose seemingly innocuous in Wikipedia's voice - Unless reliable sources can be shown to use the term or explain the term in ways that can support this phrasing, it would be original research which we cannot use. Note that I, personally, would describe the phrase as "seemingly innocuous", but that's not how wikipedia works. I would happily change this vote if sources, preferably multiple sources, can be provided using this language or more lengthily describing the term in such a way that "seemingly innocuous" would be an appropriate plain-reading summation. I definitely also oppose specifying the ADL as a non-governmental organization as completely irrelevant. I don't support any specific phrasing. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any use of "seemingly innocuous" - This should not be used in wikivoice, and if it is used in attributed voice, it would need to be shown WP:DUE. This RFC is a tire fire with terrible options described and a non-neutral opening statement. If any of these options are good, the least bad is B. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Option B on that I don't like the phrasing of "seemingly innocuous". Mentioning that it's a dogwhistle may instead do the job with less force, but omitting it is also a good choice. SWinxy (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)