Talk:Fourteen Words

message: As stated before the references to the ADL should be discounted, plus they are broken (the external links) as well as the link to the PDF of "88 Percepts".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.234 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The Anarchist Fourteen Words is an Anti-nationalist phrase used by Anti-fascists. The slogan was coined by Tony Blackplait, a member of Vennaskond. It states: We must secure the existence of Earth people and a future for all children. It is often used as a greeting to affirm one's affiliation with Anarchism, and is a parody of the 'Fourteen Words' attributed to White Power.
Um, I'm an anarchist and I've never heard this, and I sure have never used it as a greeting to affirm my anarchist beliefs. Is there a source for this? I do think it is funny, and I think this is a clever way to insert a pro-anarchist message in a neo-nazi page, but it should be sourced because I'm doubtful of the validity of this. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any trace of their usage on the Internet. -Will Beback 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the guy who coined it was apparently Estonian, so perhaps it's an Estonian phrase translated into English for this article. But I think that's a stretch, as it would be strange to make an Estonian pun on an English phrase and end up with the same number of words in both translations. Google searches for ""Tõnu Trubetsky", "Tonu Trubetsky" and "Tony Blackplait" combined with "fourteen words" turn up zilch. I've removed it for the moment, erring on the side of verifiability, and I'll ask the guy who put it in (RobotF Fourteen Words) where he heard it. You'd've thought anything used by anarchists would turn up at least once on Google. --Malthusian (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anarchist 14 Words are in his book "The Anarchists".--Munn 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've referenced the paragraph. --Malthusian (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchist 14 words?

message: Since we have the phrase's definition, its inventor, its origin and two examples of use, is this really still a stub? --Malthusian (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: OK this page needs a rewrite to look less shitty and povved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.211.4 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not a Nazi but 

message: Was it a supremacist group or a nationalist group?
MichiganLake (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is important question raised by MichiganLake. I would tend to call it a "white supremacist group" rather than a "white nationalist group," but I'd like to hear what others have to say. Scotteaux (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Order was a Supremacist group? 

message: The ADL is obviously a biased source when it comes to this. I'll try and find another reference that's better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.90.59 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took out the ADL reference 

message: At the bottom is a box titled 'far right in brtian' but the article is not specific to britain, david lane was amercian according to the article on him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.49.246 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom of the page.. 

message: They're formatted badly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.78.6 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quotes 

message: The Fourteen Words are undeniably connected to the person David Lane, as well as the group The Order and also the article 88 Precepts here on Wikipedia. Yet when an addition is made, there are claims of whitewashing.72.174.104.250 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; and while 2 of those links were already linked in the article (see WP:ALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes), the other two were not, so I left them in. Please understand that as an editor, when I see 10 edits from an anonymous IP, and after I scan 2 or 3 of them I see that they're introducing a non-NPOV, it's just easier to undo all the edits. That may be hasty, but it is what it is. I'd encourage you to register, as it provides numerous benefits and you still remain completely anonymous. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of See Also section  

message: I don't think this is notable. I've never heard of it before. We should probably just delete it.67.4.236.227 (talk)
:Wikipedia does not base its decisions of which articles should exist based on whether you have personally heard of a term or not. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?

message: I understand you may want to put this image in the article somewhere, but I don't think it is a good idea to have it as the first image that comes up in the article, as it gives a negative image of the phrase. The phrase "14/88" refers to the existence of white people and a future for white children. It is a white nationalist phrase, not a white supremacist phrase.
--Macaroniking (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a venue for Nazi apologetics. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is it a venue for any political view.  Neutral means neutral.  The sites about the most abhorrent views are the easiest places to start moving away from neutrality... and that is a dangerous slide toward an openly POV wikipedia. Bzzzing (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between "White Supremacist" and "White Nationalist" is only made by white supremacists. Therefore to use the phrase "White Nationalist" promotes a specific POV. -- PaulxSA (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Sorry  but I have to agree with  here; adding apostrophes to make something plural is the kind of thing you expect from greengrocers, not encyclopedias. Since you know a lot about Wikipedia I thought there may be some precedent that you were following, but it looks like you just decided to make a unilateral MOS edit after the fact instead (adding Plurals for numerals and letters are formed by the addition of an apostrophe followed by an "s").
If there is a precedent on WP then I'd like to see it, maybe even reverse it. If not then I'd like to point out that Google ngrams for 1000s vs 1000's or 1960s vs 1960's, to pick a couple of random examples, shows a distinct skew away from using apostrophes. (Click on Search lots of books if the links don't work immediately.) More to the point, I know of no rationale for using an apostrophe to make a plural unless you're a greengrocer who doesn't know any better. Maybe it's because it's way past my bedtime but it seems to me like you're exceeding your perceived authority here, Ken. If I'm mistaken then please forgive the insinuation. Grovel, grovel. nagualdesign 02:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I take it back.  The New York Times seemed to have changed their style book between the edition I have and the newer one online. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I have no "authority" here, except that which may come with 12 years of editing, over 200,000 edits, and the respect of a number of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence why I used the word perceived. After posting this section I found the discussion, such as it was, on Anrza's talk page. Looking at the timestamps I'm a bit disappointed that you would read Anzra's reply (23:31, 10th December) referring you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Plural and possessive forms, which clearly says, "As always, do not use an apostrophe to form a plural", then elect to edit the MOS (01:03, 11 December) in order to have it your own way. Given your exhaustive contributions to WP:ANI I thought you'd hold yourself to higher standards than that. I hope you've now undone your edit to WP:MOS. nagualdesign 03:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greengrocer apostrophes 

message: Since Berg on KOA denied that his mother was Jewish, claiming that his father was, unless there is proof that he became a proselyte, I don't think he should simplistically be called Jewish.  Michael Cohen (for example) denies that Berg was a Jew.   Michael Mark Cohen: The Secret History of America, All My Terrorists Are White.  See also NNDB Jewish Ancestry, a list of non-Jewish with Jewish ancestry, including Alan Berg.  Jewish Ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacePeace  (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these are reliable sources, and this article is absolutely not the place to insinuate doubt about someone's identity in this way. Reasonable people (which excludes Nazis and others who follow Lane's nonsense) understand that Jewish identity is not a simple issue, and this isn't even remotely appropriate as a venue to debate it. We reflect sources in proportion to due weight, which means that here, it's perfectly sufficient to just say he was Jewish. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are reliable on this. The fact that Berg's mother was not Jewish is also common knowledge to those who followed his radio show in Denver.  On the other hand, your comments are not a reliable source. This is no "insinuation about someone's identity." If Berg were Jew or Gentile, there is no degradation in any case. And regardless of the above, there is no reliable source given to prove that Berg's mother was Jewish. Moreover, the issue is  not how Berg identified, but what he was. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivanka Trump's mother isn't Jewish either. The rules of certain religious sects do not govern Wikipedia. The issue is in fact how Berg identified; "what he was" is incoherent nonsense--there's no law of physics that determines whether someone is Jewish. P.S. I'm not surprised to learn that this person has an indefinite ban. Jibal (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there proof that Alan Berg was really Jewish? 

message: Here is archive Press Releases | Homeland Security showing the title the day after, one of five published in the previous day, as I'm unable to access archives of the page itself from then. 06:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this even listed here? There has never been confirmation of any ill intent by the DHS, and it is patently obvious that not all fourteen-word-long phrases are The Fourteen Words. The inclusion of this section seems only to exist to validate someone's pet conspiracy theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.135.198 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with the discussion above and have removed the section again. IMO this portion of the article is poorly-constructed conspiracy rambling. J h773 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: DHS on Feb 2018

message: I had added
:88 had been previously referenced during February 2017 in regard to "credible fear" criterion for asylum claims
based on:
*
This in regard to:
:On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum
Chris Hayes pointed that out  but the article doesn't elaborate on that. Since he made the connection I think that is proper grounds to include it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A reliable source cites Hayes, which was borderline to include at all, honestly. The Reuters story is WP:SYNTH unless its significance can be directly explained by a reliable source. It's also going to cause confusion to readers without this context. This is a single obscure incident based on a breaking news tidbit without any indication of lasting impact. If there is eventually more coverage, use restraint before cramming even more details into this section. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

text: In re: the viral DHS post: the article only has 13 bullet points (not 14) and the 88 appears to be working off the fact that 88% of applicants pass their credible fear interview. (But a far lower percentage are granted asylum)
"Working off" is his establishing the connection, and he highlights the "credible fear" association with the number. The "nearly" and "percent" appear to have gotten lost in translation, which is the oddest, and we don't know where 13 (or less than 13) came from. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2017

message: There was an image of a heavily tattooed criminal at the head of the article, which I have removed.
The article is not about criminals, nor is it about tattoos, so I believe the image to be placed there to create a misleading association between the topic and criminality.
Would an article about toast lead with an image of a heavily tattooed criminal if they had a tattoo of some toast? I don't believe so.
219.88.161.199 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That exact question was asked by 101.98.88.223 7 months ago except they said "apples" instead of "toast". Why don't you read the prior discussion and come back if you have any questions not already addressed. I've restored the image per the bold revert discuss cycle. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The two IPs are the same editor. That editor is also  and  or a meatpuppet. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Please discuss the issue on your talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IP is not a sock. It also seems very unlikely that they are a meatpuppet, although in the world today that's not impossible - just impossible to prove or disprove. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

text: What discussion? You removed an image without  discussing it beforehand, and ignored the previous discussion about it. Jibal (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Misleading Image 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Fourteen Words's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "adl":
From American Renaissance (magazine): 
From William Daniel Johnson: 
From Hal Turner: 
From David Lane (white supremacist): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Fourteen Words]] 

message: Probably the editor who uploaded it to Commons IP hopping. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The second photo is graffiti 1488 on the shop wall. Volzhsky, Volgograd region, March 3, 2022 Russia Цйфыву (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: file:///D:/saves/Cursed_graffiti_in_Volzhsky.jpg Цйфыву (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian cake image 

message: Current Version: "It is suspected that four perpetrators were involved; one of them was identified as a 28-year-old Australian, who displayed neo-Nazi symbols and the white supremacist Fourteen Words on his firearms and online postings.
Should we include the Christchurch shooting at this article?Cinadon36 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Christchurch mosque shootings]] 

message: This edit repeatedly made by an anonymous editor replaces "white nationalist" with "white supremacist" without explanation or discussion. The source cited directly and repeatedly says "white nationalist".
I have requested semi-protection to bring them to the talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  White nationalists vs. white supremecists 

message: Note this edit, just the latest in a string of IP edits to this article and the one on David Lane--the key is "Following a militantly Anti-American platform that ran contrary to most of the U.S. oriented White supremacy movement". It's sourced to this, from the SPLC, and to his own words, on some website I'm not going to quote here, because that's some Nazi website. First of all, that he was anti-American is not what the SPLC wrote, nor did they write that other BS, about how "other" Nazis felt differently--which is a clear effort to make the others look better in comparison. The SPLC has a quote or two of the dude's own drivel, including something about wiping his ass with the American flag, but that's his own words, and if you want to get "anti-American" out of that, you can just as easily get "pro-American" out of the last quote, "the patriot, being led to the inquisition's dungeons or the executioner's axe, will be condemned the loudest by his former friends and allies" (aw boohoo)--since there can be no patriot without a country he claims to love. So, no. Not neutral, full of OR, lacking proper sourcing, etc. User:ST47, thanks for semi-protecting Lane's article for the while; if this happens again here, maybe this needs to be semi-ed too. UPDATE: I see you took care of it. Thanks! And , thanks to you too. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-American" 

message: The article for David Lane includes "white supremacist" in it's title, obviously to distinguish him from other notable David Lane's. Why is it necessary to have that phrasing precede the link to his article? People who can access Wikipedia are not as a general rule stupid. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Until today, I had never heard of that David Lane, although I do know another one. Describing him as a white supremacist is obviously acceptable in Wikipedia's voice, since that's part of the title of his article, and it quickly tells me what he is most known for. So I found it helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Supremacist in lede 

message: To the editor that decided to revert this modification, the cited source states:
"The slogan was authored by David Lane while he was serving a 190-year sentence in federal prison for his role in the murder of Jewish talk show host Alan Berg and a series of armored car robberies that netted more than $4 million"
It does not say what you are changing the article to claim. 2604:2D80:490E:D600:0:0:0:8428 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil liberties violation sentence 

message: Removed unsourced, redundant information multiple times. https://books.google.com/books?id=FIwwWSSL5JIC&pg=PA67&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false 172.58.46.146 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced to this source in the section Phrasing. As to the "redundant" part, the lede is supposed to be a short summary of the article, so it will have some information that is repeated further down on the page. Sjö (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  88 signifying "Heil Hitler" on Page 69 of book Gods of the Blood by Mattias Gardell 

message: All of the education this article provides about the fourteen words has no basis if the reader is not shown clearly near the top what those fourteen words are.  This whole entry is arguably a fail for this issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.185.193.208 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it when people come to the talk page  not having read the article. There are two 14 word slogans, both quoted in full. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the actual fourteen words in quotes