Talk:Dog whistle (politics)/Archive 1

Origin
Tony Wright from The Age in 2000 reckoned that the term originated from the USA: "The Americans call this “dog-whistle politics.”". Any views on this? Andjam 07:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When it was discussed over here it was considered Australian, but I suppose that could just have been the proximate cause. If anyone has access to one of the US newspaper databases that'd be able to settle it...
 * I only have access to the UK ones; the term first shows up here in January 2005, with the exception of two hits on November 10th and 13th 2001. The one is a letter from an Australian:
 * The election campaign was "dog-whistle politics" at its worst. Howard ran his campaign almost wholly on "border protection"
 * and the other an article about the Australian election:
 * Commentators have called Mr Howard's strategy "dog whistle politics" - sending messages to a blue-collar audience that he hopes are too high-pitched to be heard by other voters.
 * But your citation is an earlier source; hmm hmm. Interesting. There's one Usenet reference from 2000, but it's Australian; it's not until earlier this year that anyone outside Australia uses it there. Which suggests that if it was an American usage, it wasn't a very common one outside certain circles. Shimgray 12:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Early uses noted care of the much-loved Language Log here, if anyone wants to incorporate them. Looks like the Americans may have it. Shimgray | talk | 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting link from 'Shimgray' above. I believe that the first Australian use of the full term "dog whistle politics" was by Bob Hawke in 1990, accusing his political opponent Andrew Peacock during the Australian Federal election campaign of that year. Lester  20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia section
The section on Australia is terribly vague. None of the cited references says anything about what exactly it was that was supposed to be signalled, or through what vehicle. One of the references, to the test itself, was totally irrelevant. Can some who knows this better than I please provide some explanation? Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

weasel
This popped up on my watchlist. Please add weasel-inline tags at the points where problems are perceived. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

removed unexplained tags
I am pulling the tags.

Adding tags seems to be a hobby or maybe a cheap way to build up the number of edits.

I suggest a modification to wiki customs. If tags of this sort are not explained on the talk pages (so someone can actually fix something) then they should be removed.

The article about the term seems to me (who had never heard of the term before today) to be straightforward and not biased.

Keith Henson (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking out the USA section
From what I can see David Greenberg (his university home page here) is a good enough authority that the term is used. The problem issue is whether anyone actually uses the supposed mechanism, but as long as we are clear that this are accusations I do not see the reason to remove the passages. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is of high quality with out a doubt, but I can't find "Dog-whistle politics" mentioned anywhere in any of the sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apolgies missed that one when i was reading through sources and i have learned slate is not a like wordpress.com or www.livejournal.com/ my mistake Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other stuff still shouldnt be there as WP:OR Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked them yet but we'll see. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having checked the others, I agree that their inclusion is questionable. I did find two other good references:
 * No doubt these can be worked into the text. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means include these new sources, I am not opposed to the information being here I just want to be sure of accuracy if we really are going to inlcude criticism of certian groups then we should at least have a RS. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * here an interesting application of the label. the concept comes off as a manulative tactic in the article. I am going to have to look more into this as I keep finding it more and more interesting Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means include these new sources, I am not opposed to the information being here I just want to be sure of accuracy if we really are going to inlcude criticism of certian groups then we should at least have a RS. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * here an interesting application of the label. the concept comes off as a manulative tactic in the article. I am going to have to look more into this as I keep finding it more and more interesting Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The agonist.org link
This is actually referred to in the ''Wash. Post'' article (in the passage beginning "Then Ian Welsh, on his Agonist blog, postulated a theory about the hidden meaning of the comment"). I was dubious about using it, too, but apparently it's important in the history of the phrase. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

POV + Palin
Nowadays the term is more in use than ever, with Googling revealing more references to the alleged link between the Arizona shooting and Sarah Palin than not. Perhaps mention should be made of this, since, unlike the anonymous Atwater quote, this is actually an instance of the term being used in U.S. politics. (Atwater died before the term was even coined, so it seems like a rather shoe-horned example, better suited for "code words.")

Also, there does seem to be an assumption through many of the examples that they're true and the dog whistle claim isn't merely a form of unfalsifiable ad hominem attack. It seems to often be used to delegitimize political opponents without having actually caught them saying or doing anything delegitimizing. Merely writing that the accusations are "disputed" is not the same as saying they might be in bad faith. The Arizona situation provides many examples of claims of bad faith on all sides. Calbaer (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion
We have had a great deal of trouble with examples in this article largely because (it seems to me) the term is simply a synonym for the use of code words in politics, and it has become fashionable. Therefore there doesn't seem to be any reason to have any separate section in Code word (figure of speech) for its use in politics, because it's exactly the same thing. One could keep them as separate topics, but then I think we will have a constant struggle because people will create a distinction between uses of "code word" (before the later term became popular) and "dog-whistling", even though they are really exactly the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a distinct enough application of code words that it deserves its own listing. If nothing else, a listing for this would educate people to the fact that this is happening. As to examples, part of the listing could allow for people to ad examples as they come across them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QueasyGoose (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that as far as I can tell it isn't at all distinct. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend against merging. 'Dog Whistle' is a distinct and widely used concept, and while there is an overlap of meaning withg 'code word', it is nonetheless used differently. Downes —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Used differently how? Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Coded words (per its wiki page) have usages in commercial, medical fields, etc. Whereas dog-whistle is limited to the political arena. In fact, the coded words article doesn't even mention politics. That's not to say that the two pages may not be merged with careful editing. But I did add a "See also" link to this article on the coded words article. It may be that dog whistle is a subset of coded words. I would be curious to hear from Mangoe in what ways a dog-whistle is not a coded words, which would argue for a separate page. SmallRepair (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture
This whole article is based on conjecture. There is no real way to determine that someone was using code words unless they actually admit to it. A good example of someone assuming their rival was using "code words" is when Paul Tsongas claimed Bill Clinton used them against him. Here's from The New York Times:

"Mr. Tsongas also lashed out at Mr. Clinton, who on Thursday said in Denver that "We can not put our fairness under the    guise of promising growth. It won't work, it's not America." The remark was erroneously quoted in some news accounts as, "It's not American," prompting part of Mr. Tsongas's harsh attack on Mr. Clinton. "To say my economic plan is not American," Mr. Tsongas said. "That's a code word. There's nothing more cynical -- it's the ultimate example of cynicism." He also said that "people who are ethnic will understand what I am talking about." (THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Democrats; Saying Clinton Is Cynical, Tsongas Goes on the Attack By RICHARD L. BERKE Published: March 07, 1992)

I have no idea what Mr. Clinton meant by "it's not America". It could mean what Mr. Tsongas thought or maybe something completely different, or nothing. It sounds like Mr. Clinton was saying that Mr. Tsongas' idea wasn't how America as a whole was, but who really knows by Clinton or his speechwriter? This is a good example of how some can assume that certain words are "code words" erroneously or as mere conjecture. Occidensylvania (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this even real?
I ask because all of the cited examples are allegations from the Left concerning the Right. I don't think there is such a thing as "dog-whistle politics"; I regard the phrase as an argument ad hominem by association. The examples in this article are all allegations without any evidence that the supposed practitioners actually intend their words to be understood this way.

It is clearly an ad hominem tactic: if you are saying "You think he's reasonable, but he's secretly appealing to racists", you are not discussing the substance of what was said; rather, you are discussing the intended audience, an unrelated issue.

A cartoonish example would be "You believe that some things are better left to state governments than to the national government. This is just another name for 'State's Rights', a slogan of the Confederacy.  Hence you are trying to appeal to racists; probably you are racist yourself". But this is not very far from what Alan Dershowitz said, in response to Bob Barr ("Real Americans understand the Constitution is there for a reason"):

"Whenever I hear the words 'real Americans', that sounds to me like a code word for racism, a code word for bigotry, a code word for anti-Semitism."

Since they were discussing Clinton's impeachment, what was the point? Clinton was not black or Jewish, and Bob Barr is black (though Dershowitz may not have known it). The point was to discredit Barr's statement without addressing it, by associating him with unnamed bigots who may have used the same phrase in an unrelated context.

There is no one actually practicing "dog-whistle" politics; the accusation is a rhetorical tactic intended to discredit a person's argument without addressing it. If the phenomenon is real, surely it is not practiced only by the political right, and suitable examples can be added to the article. The Right, in America at least, does use the "dog-whistle" accusation as a rhetorical tactic. An example might be when Barack Obama used the phrase "share the wealth", which prompted accusations from the Right of a secret agenda of radical socialism.

Some of the examples used here are just ignorant. George W. Bush's Biblical quotations are not "code words". They are the common heritage of Western culture. Without at least a cursory knowledge of the Bible most of English literature is incomprehensible, and Biblical quotations are no more a code word than Greek mythology or Shakespeare--even though most people nowadays have little familiarity with the Bible or Shakespeare or Classical Greece. Even fifty years ago they were quite common ("rich as Croesus", "painted Jezebel", "the lady doth protest too much, methinks") and even today people may say "good Samaritan" or "turn the other cheek" without being aware of the Biblical origin of these phrases. They're not "codes", they are literary allusions.Shrikeangel (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can certainly say the concept exists, though whether any given example of it here actually is someone intentionally doing it is an open question. I would be leery of saying it only exists as a term of abuse, though - I think there's evidence to suggest the idea was, at least originally, used deliberately.
 * It's worth noting that when the term first appeared in the UK - during the 2005 campaign - it was frequently attributed to Lynton Crosby, the Australian campaign director the Conservatives had brought in; it'd be interesting to see if we can find any 1990s quotes from him discussing it. (This was in the original version of the article, but has since been cut). Parris (who we cite) notes that he picked it up from two Australian senators, who used it to describe Howard (they were in the same party) in 2003, but they may have been reflecting a common accusation. As you note, it does seem to be almost invariably a left-against-right thing, though Parris there is interesting - he's a former Conservative MP, broadly on the side of the party, and his original article doesn't really treat the concept with disgust.
 * What would be useful would be... well, mostly tearing it down and starting again. We'd want a clear indication of a) who coined the term (some Australian newspapers refer to it as being an Americanism); b) anyone using it favourably or self-referentially; c) examples of it from across the political spectrum, and even beyond - I've seen it used in the past for class-specific shibboleths, for example; and d) trying to generalise the American section, or possibly finding examples that aren't quite so contemporary. The Bush section is a bit of a trainwreck. Shimgray | talk | 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a thing going around the US in the 80s: a belief in secret, multigenerational Satanic cults that were running preschools, sexually abusing children, performing human sacrifice and what-not. Millions of people believed that this was real phenomenon, and there were any number of serious discussions of it in the mass media, but it was not a real phenomenon. There may be millions of people who might believe that John Howard or John McCain have secret code words in their speeches intended to appeal to unnamed racists, but there is no evidence presented here, or anywhere, that any politician intentionally does this as a political tactic. All we have evidence of is that some politicians are accused, without evidence, of doing so. The very kindest that can be said for those making the accusation is that they are committing a fallacy: "A uses the word X, which has a special meaning to a group Y which believes in B, thus A is making a secret appeal to Y, and since you don't believe in B and don't want to be associated with Y, then don't listen to A". When put this way, it is clearly nonsense.

The Parris article introducing "dog-whistling" is in no way complimentary to Howard: "Beneath a serpentine smile and a sinewy charm...I once thought I might leave the Conservative Party if someone like Michael Howard came to lead it. My feelings, along (I think) with those of many on the Centre and Centre Left of my party, have altered and we could now best be described as warily wishing him well." In America we'd call this "holding one's nose to vote". Parris is saying that Howard is sleazy, but not as bad he used to think, and this is the context in which he describes the "dog-whistling". In the second article he describes the Australian senators as in the same party as Howard, but to the left. He then goes on to say that it is obvious that Howard is NOT "dog-whistling".Shrikeangel (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is definately a term that is made by the left to attack the right, as evidenced by the onesided additions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.98.93 (talk • contribs) 04:29, April 14, 2010


 * That's a given, since dogwhistling is necessary to avoid political correctness, which the left has more or less imposed on the right over time. It's not okay to be openly racist, so to appeal to those racists you have to use proxy terms like "Welfare Queens" or "States rights" so that the racists, while not getting a cue that you're openly as racist as them, know roughly which side of the fence you're on. Dog-whistling is a very predictable result of political correctness, and just because it generally goes one way does NOT mean it's not a real term. 128.2.51.144 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To the inherent ad hominem of accusations of dog-whistling you add begging the question. Whether politicians accused of dog-whistling actually are trying to appeal to racists is the very point at issue.  If dog-whistling is not real, then they are not secretly appealing to racists.  So you can't use their desire to appeal to racists as proof that dog-whistling is real, because you have not demonstrated that they desire to appeal to them.

It seems that you think "welfare queen" is an inherently racist term. In other words, you admit to hearing the whistle. And so what does that make you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.240.193 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal - Dog-whistle politics > Dog-whistle (politics)
As it stands now, the title implies that there is a particular type of politics called "Dog-whistle politics", when in fact our article is about the standalone term "Dog-whistle" within the general realm of politics and political discourse. The proposed move would bring the title of the article into agreement with Wikipedia naming conventions. Rather than boldly move the article, I thought it best to seek some concurrence from other editors first. Roccodrift (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The hyphen is there because the first two words are being used together as an adjective, so your suggestion would be ungrammatical. It would be like changing "American Mountains" to "American (Mountains)". However, changing it to a more grammatical "Dog whistle (politics)" would still be bad. That's because "dog-whistle politics" is an idiom, so breaking it up with parentheses would only interfere with the ability of readers to find this article. See this and that for evidence. MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the hyphen isn't part of the proposal, which is merely a very routine WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Roccodrift (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Belchfire, if we leave the hyphen, then the article would be about an adjective. That's not how we do things here. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. "Dog-whistle" is a noun with or without the hyphen (see Compound (linguistics), or perhaps this page ).  In any event, I have neither proposed nor do I support the removal of the hyphen, so there is little sense arguing against it unless you are trying to slay a straw man.  Roccodrift (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel awkward as a non-American teaching English to Americans, but I don't know what else to do. "Dog whistle" is indeed compound noun. It's a kind of whistle, not a kind of dog. "Dog-whistle politics" is a type of politics, where "dog-whistle" is a compound adjective specifying which type. So if we keep the hyphen but move the noun being modified into parentheses, then the article would be on the adjective instead of the noun, and that would not be encyclopedic. I explained this with the example "American (Mountains)". MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken on the grammatical technicality. Do you have a policy-based objection against disambiguation?  Or can you state a reason this article should be titled using the idiom rather than the noun that it's based on? Roccodrift (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the idiom. MilesMoney (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious: "Dog-whistling was introduced to the UK from Australia...In the 2005 British general election"
Not attempting to belittle the impact of that, but I seriously doubt that was the first time Dog-Whistle Politics appeared in the UK. - Richfife (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's certainly the first time the term was [generally] used. I've rewritten a bit to clarify. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom
None of the examples given in this section appear to match the definition given in the introduction. Clivemacd (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Arrogant" is the new Uppity and also "That One"
Calling Obama "Arrogant" has been a pretty ubiquitous meme amongst the right, since before he even won the election, and a lot of accusations are being levied that it's a new dogwhistle now that "Uppity" is obviously racist. Having essentially identical definitions, and the large frequency of the exact word being tossed around inclines me to agree. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/when-rove-calls-obama-arr_b_109639.html

Also, the article mentions "The One" but I don't think that was the dogwhistle so much as "THAT One" as written here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/mccain_calls_obama_that_one_wh.html 128.2.51.144 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

a) "Arrogant" is a dog whistle for racism. "You lie" is a dog whistle for racism. "Plays too much golf" is a dog whistle for racism.  What ISN'T? b) If you can hear the dog whistle, what does that make you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.13.23.225 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To the last poster: one can hear the dog whistle without being a member of its target audience. It only takes a knowledge of the history surrounding the term. "Dog-whistle" is merely an analogy, it does not line up perfectly with the real thing (since only dogs can hear dog whistles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.64.23 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the analogy still works — humans are perfectly capable of detecting a dog whistle's existence without having to hear it personally (otherwise, dog whistles could never have been invented!). We might say that "hearing" the whistle is equivalent to not only recognizing but agreeing with the underlying implication, while "observing" the whistle in action (for example, with special sound-detecting equipment, or simply seeing how a dog reacts) is equivalent to recognizing that a coded signal has been employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.35.198 (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dog-whistle politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218104049/https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dog-whistle-politics-9780199964277?cc=us&lang=en& to https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dog-whistle-politics-9780199964277?cc=us&lang=en&
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20060925/just_a_comma_dog_whistle_politics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Only Conservatives have dog whistles?
In the US section 6 of 8 examples are about conservatives blowing dog whistles. Do liberals not have dog whistles? Can they borrow some from conservatives? This sections, as a whole is hardly NPOV....unless someone can cite an article that says 75% of dog whistlers are conservative. 114.109.152.48 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)n0w8st8s
 * Both sides are the same. /s --Craigboy (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples
Jim DeMint's quote in 2009 on Obama's proposed health insurance reform: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him". The term "break him" has a specific meaning in the South with regard to slavery. Hard to dispute the targeted audience and intended meaning. Of course, we can't be certain unless DeMint admits it. But I can't be certain that it will rain here in Seattle this week until it actually does rain.

Or he was watching Rocky IV, and took the phrase from that arch-racist Dolph Lundgren. You're assuming in bad faith that the phrase is being used in reference to an old, outdated, racist term, instead of the much more common everyday meaning of the phrase. Other than that, brilliant argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.19.37 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples: Family Values
Family Values is synonomous with homophobia of sorts, such as being against marriage equality AKA gay marriage 203.97.255.148 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not an exampkle unless you can cite people saying that it is! Mangoe (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Christopher Butler. Postmodernism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press; 2002. ISBN 978-0-19-280239-2. p. 77. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is only recently. The term is more shorthand, or an umbrella term. It could possibly be a codeword, but everyone pretty much know what it means. Yes, opposition to gay marriage is covered under it, but also opposition to abortion and Judeo-Christian values The thing is being against something sounds worse than being for something. Which is why there is the term pro-life. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Republicans starting using the phrase "family values" prior to the Reagan Presidency, when same-sex marriage did not even rise to the level of general awareness, let alone political possibility.  The phrase referred to opposition to any policy that was said to erode the family and support for any policy that did the opposite.  In fact, I'd say that this article needs a major section on "reverse dog-whistles": Phrases said by one side, but interpreted as something completely different by the other.  In other words, the side that charges that the phrase is a dog-whistle intended to dupe their side are, in fact, the dogs, hearing something the whistler cannot. Calbaer (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like this is the most famous one and easiest to prove.--Craigboy (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullets
The following was removed from the article, but with re-working, some or all of these examples could be restored.
 * Commonly-cited examples of dog-whistle politics include
 * civil rights-era use of the phrase "forced busing," used to enable a person to imply opposition to racial integration without them needing to say so explicitly
 * the state of Georgia's adoption, in 1956, of a flag visually similar to the Confederate battle flag, itself understood by many to be a dog-whistle for racism
 * the phrase "Southern strategy," used by the Republican Party in the 1960s to describe plans to gain influence in the South by appealing to people's racism
 * Ronald Reagan, on the campaign trail in 1980, saying in Mississippi "I believe in states' rights" (a sentence the New Statesman later described as "perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement"), described as implying Reagan believed that states should be allowed, if they want, to retain racial segregation
 * Reagan's use of the term "welfare queens," said to be designed to rouse racial resentment among white working-class voters against minorities
 * a 2008 TV ad for Republican presidential candidate John McCain called "The One," which observers said dog-whistled to evangelical Christians who believed Obama might be the Antichrist
 * a Tea Party spokeswoman saying President Obama "doesn't love America like we do," thought to be an allusion to Obama's race and to the birth certificate controversy
 * Republicans frequently emphasizing Obama's middle name
 * an aide to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney saying Romney would be a better president than Obama because Romney understood the "shared Anglo-Saxon heritage" of the United States and the United Kingdom
 * former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, and others, calling Obama "the food stamps president" said to be a way of exploiting stereotypes among racially resentful white voters who see food stamps as unearned giveaways to minorities
 * Barack Obama referring to Mitt Romney in campaign ads as "not one of us," the implication being that Romney's Mormon faith makes him different than most Americans.
 * _________
 * <:ref>
 * <:ref>
 * <:ref>
 * <:ref>
 * <:ref>
 * <:ref>

This was one long, run-on sentence [ here]. It is hard to understand, even after the run-on clauses were re-formatted as bullets. --Ansei (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to Wedge Politics
The dog whistle and the wedge are NOT analogous but quite distinct tactics. Both are used in current Australian Politics.

1. The dog whistle involves saying A, knowing that a subset of your audience will make an association to B, and react in the intended fashion, while the rest of the audience will interpret A differently.

2. The wedge involves finding an issue that can divide your opposition, due to exccessive breadth or internal contradiction in their policy package or media image. The wedging point of view can be expressed directly, unlike a dog whistle.

Corker-Ford
I removed the Corker-Ford election paragraph. It's politically charged, opinionated and it quotes no source for the "critic's" opinions. Any critic can say anything they want, but it doesn't make it valid factual evidence. Quote a source, or leave it out.

Additionally, "critics" of the "critics" frequently made the counter point that the blonde in question was representative of actual events. The woman he was involved with was Caucasian, not African-American.

Inaudible
Supposedly a dog-whistle is only audible to the targeted group. The only example given that I think meets that standard is the one about "family" "values" appealing to Christians. Racist utterances that avoid overtly racist language are not dog-whistles - that's just bigotry. "Old-stock Canadians" is equally far off the mark; it obviously means "not recent immigrants". Anyone can hear that note - not just bigots (as noted - "opposition leader reaction was swift and scathing"). The UK Conservative "Go Home" campaign in 2013 was equally overt; that's not dog-whistling, that's pandering loudly and unashamedly to bigotry.

This is a problem because I am increasingly seeing UK journalists using this term to refer to overt gutter politics, as if the term was just a hip new way to refer to demagogy.

I am not inclined to try to reform the article to address this problem on my own. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment: The fact that this term is now used mainly to imply something untrue of a political enemy - that they're using coded language only comprehended by their own kind - should be reflected in the article. (Sometimes it's a blatantly obvious statement that's accused of being a "dog whistle," and sometimes it's a ridiculous accusation of dog-whistling, like that associating "golf" with our last president is somehow racist because Tiger Woods played golf too.)  Unfortunately, observations regarding this are generally opinion pieces by members of groups (associated with those) maligned with accusations that they "dog whistle," so it'd be easy to just write them off as marginal opinions.  It's not really in the interest of (allies of) those who make the accusations to critically examine them.  Certainly no one to my knowledge has done a broad-based factual analysis.  Still, I can find quite a number of such pieces by Googling "federalist dog-whistle" (The Federalist being a conservative publication), e.g., "Trump Attack On Clinton's Stamina Obvious, Not Dog Whistle."  But that's only good for something like, "Many conservatives claim that alleged 'dog-whistles' contain no hidden language, either explicitly saying what's accused of being implicit, or clearly not implying what was allegedly inferred." Calbaer (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition of the Dog Whistle isn't that it's "inaudible", the point is that the message is specifically audible and of significant meaning and resonance to a particular group. The language can be decoded, but it is specific enough to avoid accusations of bigotry etc. However most media works to decode such language in order to highlight dog whistle phrases and many are now common enough phrases to be recognised.
 * In other cases the dog whistle is so overt that the coding seems very blatant but the coding is such that it's more important that the recipients know that the message is intended for them. Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Nonsense
This lengthy article consists entirely of some people making completely unsubstantiated and apparently groundless assumptions about what other people mean when they employ certain terms. It comes off looking like the concept of "dog whistle politics" has been invented out of nothing in order to justify dehumanizing political opponents.

As has been mentioned before in this Talk page, isn't it strange that this dehumanization is directed only from the political left to the right?

Either rewrite this entire article or insert the word "allegedly" in every single sentence. Bogus concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:F204:3B25:65C4:DF6B:7456:F271 (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rewrite article entirely? How? Under what pretence? Using what sources? Meanwhile the charge of the left attacking the right for the use of dog whistle politics is abundantly false. Unfortunately many notable right wing candidates have used the method through the years (and continue to), but the same charge has been made at groups such as Labour in the UK for anti-Semitism etc. Not necessarily by leaders, but certainly by members.
 * To be very clear; you don't need to defend terrible divisive tactics by inserting "alleged". Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

criticism section
Because we are talking about an invisible entity that is difficult to falsify (read Karl Popper), there is a need for a criticism section if any sources can be found. If Trump failed to condemn white supremacists for a while, that doesn't really mean there is an invisible entity such as a dog whistle that is measurable, reliable, and valid. Rather, it means Trump did not condemn white supremacists as quickly as a good politician would. A dog whistle is essentially an unfalsifiable political weapon used to accuse your opponents of not meaning what their words actually meant. I say that as a liberal, and our side has tried to used this pseudoscience to win. I digress, a sane criticism section is needed, and for that we need reputable sources that at least use some freethought and critical thinking about this invisible concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources, present them? Editing Wikipedia is collaborative and not beholden to any individual to make edits based upon the demands of others. A criticism section is also largely a bad technique used by editors unable to read evidence in favour of quickly glancing at content that might agree with their point of view. Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Aussiewikilady - this article is badly in need of a decent criticism section. The article is just a long list of supposed examples, in which people have been accused of using 'dog whistle' tactics. The concept has some validity, but it seems to be used basically as tactic to discredit those who you disagree with in an attempt to shut down debate. It assumes that the accuser knows what the speaker really meant (how is that in any way scientific or provable?) and has now become so over-used that it has lost any usefulness it may once have had. Left-wingers can accuse politicians talking about immigration 'dog whistling' to racists, right-wingers accuse those talking about the wealth gap 'dog whistling' to leftists. I may look into this further though I generally avoid these political/controversial articles as getting bogged down in a tedious editing war is not something I relish.WisDom-UK (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)  ps. I've added an 'unbalance' tag which seems the most appropriate one.
 * I also agree with Aussiewikilady to say that this is quite an unscientific concept. Which independent criteria and test validity are we using to classify a statement as a 'dog-whistle' or not? Alcaios (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: intro
Which version of the intro is preferable? And to what extent should content from the second paragraph of Version 2 be included? 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Version 1:

Version 2:

Version 3: 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Version 3, as OP. I didn't mean for my phrasing to suggest that dog whistle accusations are always true, and I don't think it does, just that trying to discredit the idea before even going into a full explanation is clearly intended to give the impression that they're never/rarely true, and feels pretty WP:POV. What's more, the paragraph seems to be mostly WP:OR since the source cited hardly doesn't go into intentional false accusations, doesn't say anything about political correctness or gaslighting, and considers what is used in V2 as an example of a 'false' accusation to be likely or at least potentially legitimate ("meet[ing] in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty."). It mentions that they're difficult to prove, generally denied, and that some argue the concept is too "open to abuse" which is what I've tried to paraphrase with due weight. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ReconditeRodent, I don't want to give you a hard time for making a good-faith proposal, but in my personal opinion this RfC is premature, because the steps listed in WP:RFCBEFORE never happened. This RfC basically takes the three versions you were able to think of and forces those responding to choose one of the three with no other choices. I would suggest withdrawing it and simply posting "I think the lead should read..." with what you think is the best wording. Then see if everyone likes it or whether someone has better wording that everyone agrees upon. RfC's are really for situations where the editors have talked about the options, each have decided how they want the article to read, but cannot come to an agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Version 3 is more succinct and to the point. All versions are reasonable though. But phrases like "Dog whistles ..." "Use of a dog whistle is, by its ..." should be changed because the article is not about actual dog whistles. ImTheIP (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Version 3: Version 1 is just poorly written and Version 2's middle paragraph fails NPOV and seemg like OR. Loki (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * All are seriously flawed, and thus this RfC is seriously flawed. Of the limited choices were are given #2 is the best. Several commenters above don't like #2 and make good point, but #1 and #3 violate NPOV by assuming that every accusation of dog-whistling is accurate. An RfC with only those three choices locks out the possibility of us working together to arrive at some wording that everyone is happy with. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Version 3 is way much shorter and concise, but still can't ignore the fact that it violates NPOV. Idealigic (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * All are flawed, though version 2 is the best. I think the problem with all of these is that they don't make it clear enough that "dog-whistle politics" is almost always an accusation, and specifically almost always an accusation of racism. (One example offered in the article that doesn't fall into that that category, of George W. Bush referring to Dred Scott v. Sandford when he was really talking about Roe v. Wade, doesn't quite fit the standard definition of "dog whistle" anyway, since Bush was also openly against the Roe v. Wade decision.) It's an easy way to accuse your political opponents of racism when they haven't actually said something racist. It would be good if the intro made it clearer that this is a pejorative term rather than an actual brand of politics. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Korny O&#39;Near makes an excellent point. Some accusations of dog-whistling are plausible, such as the family values / Christians example in the article. Lots of evangelicals, lots of people who oppose evangelicals, and thus many votes to be had if you can reach the evangelicals without alienating the anti-evangelicals.


 * That being said, many accusations of dog-whistling are extremely implausible. For example, The National Socialist Movement has roughly 400 members in 32 states and is currently the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States. So if you see an accusation that George Bush or Donald Trump was/is dog-whistling to neo-Nazis, what are the chances that they are bothering to try to get support from such a small group, pretty much none of which are going to vote democrat whatever the republican candidate does? It just isn't plausible.
 * Likewise with the accusations that Obama was dog-whistling to the Nation of Islam; 30,000 members out of a US population of 308,401,808, and unlikely to vote for McCain or Romney no matter what Obama did. Again, it just isn't plausible.
 * Version #3 just goes ahead and accepts that the implausible is always true: "Dog-whistle politics is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition." No hint that the accusations about Bush, Obama, and Trump In mentioned above are almost certainly not uses of coded or suggestive language and almost certainly are false accusations of using coded or suggestive language.
 * Again, I say withdraw this flawed RfC and open up a free discussion where anyone can suggest any wording without limiting themselves to three bad choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles start with a basic definition. When people are accused of "dog whistle politics", they are accused of "the use of coded or suggestive language etc". It doesn't imply that the term is always used fairly, and the intro explicitly states that some think the concept is prone to false accusations. This RfC is just meant to establish a baseline which can be improved with specific suggestions. If we do go with V3, what single thing would you most want to change and how specifically? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article covers some examples of politicians whose "brand of politics" supposedly makes heavy use of dog whistles but personally I'd be happy for the article to be moved to Dog whistle (politics) so the first line can be written around the more fundamental concept. If you have sources saying that the concept is often applied to accuse people of racism I think that would be a good thing to include in the intro as well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, really like the idea of moving this article to "Dog whistle (politics)" - to clarify that is a term for an (alleged) act, not a style of politics like retail politics or something. It looks like someone else suggested this, in 2013, but they weren't able to explain themselves clearly. That might help with the intro as well. Can we start a discussion on renaming while the RfC is still in effect, though? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I suspect that the result is going to be "no consensus for any of the three choices" with the closer kicking it back to the open discussion that we should have had. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Version 3 is the clearest of these options. In version 2, the order of the paragraphs doesn't make much sense—explaining meta-issues related to accusations of dog-whistle politics before clarifying exactly what dog-whistle politics is. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Misuse/Abuse Section
It should be pointed out somewhere prominent in this article that the fundamental premise of "dog whistle" accusations (the rather shaky idea that the accuser can read the mind of the accused and tell us what he "really means") allows its misuse or abuse as a political tool, by falsely maligning the entirely innocent with such mind-reading claims. One recent example pulled out of the air would be the absurd and thankfully now-discarded notion that the "OK" hand gesture is a form of White supremacist self-identification.

A source with which to start might be: https://quillette.com/2018/07/16/understanding-and-misunderstanding-dog-whistling/ which references Bonevac, D.A. Association Arguments: Dog Whistling in the Dark. Acad. Quest. 31, 157–166 (2018) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324677833_Association_Arguments_Dog_Whistling_in_the_Dark - published in the journal Academic Questions (information: https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/about-academic-questions). Some relevant paragraphs are as follows:

"Since the early 2000s, left-wing scholars throughout the English-speaking world have joined with journalists and activists to condemn the supposed dog-whistles of the Right. The struggle to root out dog-whistling can go to absurd lengths; witness the work of Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, for example, who argues that Australians’ conversations about wild dingoes breeding with domestic dogs are a form of (rather literal) dog-whistling about “race panic.” Few consider that there might be anything amiss in their ways of listening for dog-whistles, or something awry in the very idea that there is such a thing as dog-whistling."

"Daniel Bonevac [...] analyzes left-wing rhetoric about Donald Trump’s allegedly dog-whistling references to Mexican immigrant criminals. Such references appear to Trump’s critics as racist. While Trump (whom Bonevac supports) insists that “some” Mexican immigrants are “good people,” these critics argue that he implicitly targets all Mexican immigrants by associating the categories ‘Mexican’ and ‘immigrant’ with the category of criminality."

"Bonevac, logically enough, insists that such a line of argumentation would make it impermissible to issue any negative statement about members of racial groups, for fear that these statements might imply something racist about the group as a whole. Indeed, Bonevac does not go far enough. Any statement about a member of group, whether positive or negative (let alone accurate or inaccurate), made by someone suspected of being racist (i.e., anyone on the Right), may be demonstrated, after sufficiently imaginative interpretation, to have associated categories with each other in an implicitly racist, dog-whistling way. Praising a particular black man as hard-working, for example, could be uncharitably interpreted as a subtle invocation of stereotypes that black people are lazy. With enough bad faith, anything is possible."

"Dog-whistling is “lunacy,” Bonevac concludes. He then pleads with the Left not to use this tactic, warning that their enemies will eventually turn the tables on them. There are, indeed, figures on the Right, and the far-Right in particular, who traffic in accusations of dog-whistling. It is common to hear from the alt-right that words like ‘diversity’ are dog-whistles for anti-white racism."

"Observers on the Right—particularly those accused of dog-whistling themselves—may dismiss left-wing discourse about dog-whistling as mere “lunacy.” Or, as Trump himself has done, they may argue that accusations of dog-whistling racism, sexism, etc. are nothing but tactics used to silence right-wing views. “The establishment and their media enablers,” declared Trump on the campaign trail, “wield control over this nation through means that are very well known; anyone who challenges their views is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.” But accusations of dog-whistling are only a recent and particular manifestation of the general logic of the hermeneutics of suspicion, not a new form of madness or a diabolical plot. To be sure, they do function as a kind of censorship. Accusations of dog-whistling make it appear, for example, that even to speak of MS-13 gang members as “animals” is somehow to stigmatize vulnerable minorities, thereby revealing the speaker to be a vile racist. One must indeed hope that such accusations are cynical tactics rather than serious claims."

"Sedgwick and Ricoeur’s analyses of suspicious interpretation, however, reveal that claims about dog-whistling offer real attractions to the Left. Those who make such accusations access a momentary feelings of security, power, and superiority. They can imagine that they have unmasked a menacing secret, and protected themselves from dangerous surprises. They can, still more flatteringly, savor the idea that while some poor fools were deluded by the ostensibly neutral character of an opponent’s statements, they—clever and alert—grasped the hidden, horrible truth. But these satisfactions come at a price. Accusations about racist dog-whistling police the boundaries of what counts as acceptable discourse, but their power seems to be waning. They have increasingly little sway over politicians’ speech or voters’ choices. As Sedgwick warns, paranoia does not deliver on its promises."

"Consider “Sassy Trump,” a series of YouTube clips in which actor Peter Serafinowicz re-dubs segments of Trump’s speeches in the lisping, effeminate voice of a gay stereotype (the heterosexual Serafinowicz only seems to be able to get away with this because he’s mocking Trump; so what would otherwise be criticized as implicit homophobia becomes acceptable). Serafinowicz intends to ridicule Trump, but in fact his performances reveal an overlooked element of Trump’s success. Imagining Trump as a queer caricature allows us to appreciate his humor. When he quips, like a drag queen reading filth, “The wall just got ten feet hiiigher!” it’s hard not to laugh. And, indeed, as Trump’s opponents in the Republican primaries learned, his jibes and nicknames can slay."

"These may seem like trivial examples. But they demonstrate that the hermeneutics of suspicion are not the only, or the most effective, way to understand political opponents—which is after all, a condition of defeating them. We sometimes have to ask how we can imagine them as speaking a message that is meant for us. For someone on the Left, that might mean putting Trump’s words in the mouth of a catty gay stereotype or a female candidate, if that’s what it takes to really listen to what he’s saying. For someone on the Right, particularly for right-wing intellectuals given to lamenting the reign of postmodernism in intellectual culture, this could mean considering what paradigmatic postmodern thinkers and texts might say in defense of Trump."

There must be more out there, but this appears to be a good and well-referenced start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.137.46 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Food stamps, verification, and the 2014 United States Senate election in Mississippi article
I was looking at this article and happened to notice the failed verification tags after the two cites supporting the mention of "food stamps" a couple of paragraphs before the end of the United States section. I looked at both cited supporting sources and, sure enough, they not only do not mention "food stamps", they don't seem to have any relation whatever to that. Looking back in the article history, I see that this appeared in the article in this 2014 edit, and the two supporting cites which do not provide support appeared along with it. Looking more widely, it appears that this came from the 2014 United States Senate election in Mississippi article, though that article currently cites only one of those supporting sources which do not provide support. Earlier versions of that other article did cite a YouTube video which mentioned food stamps, but I see that this 2014 edit there declared an intent to remove that cite for reasons of political insensitivity and the removal was done here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I started going through the citations and the very first one failed verification. It turns out that the claim "One example may be use of the phrase 'family values' " is unsourced. The source does not contain the phrase "family values". What the source says is this:
 * "In the 2002 State of the Union, George Bush declared 'there’s power, wonderworking power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.' The way this language was interpreted varied. For some, the phrase 'wonderworking power' had no particular meaning, but those who had been exposed to a popular evangelical hymn recognized the line as a refrain in ‘‘There is Power in the Blood.’’ Candidates and politicians frequently invoke religious language...."
 * Same basic idea, but the example given is unsourced and the actual example used in the source is not mentioned. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the lead, attempting to present Family Values there more as a contrived example supported by the cited source and less as an example taken directly from that source. I'm not a good wordsmith, and this could be done better. An experimental example mentioned in the cited source reads: "I believe there is power—wonder-working power—in the goodness and idealism of the American people." (which resonates with the George Bush example from the Abstract of the source)
 * The term Family Values also appears in the Origin and meaning section of the article, supported there by a different source. I have not found an online accessible copy of that other source, and don't know whether the term is mentioned there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you did well. Support Wtmitchell's version.
 * I have been thinking about this page and pondering why it is that certain editors seem to object to certain well-sourced examples. Here is my theory:
 * I can easily find reliable sources for individuals of groups calling something "dog whistling" -- usually in the context of attacking politicians of the opposing party. Examples include:
 * "Family values" - claimed to be a dog whistle aimed at the christian right
 * "The first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." - claimed to be a dog whistle aimed at racists.
 * "Welfare queen" - claimed to be a dog whistle aimed at racists.
 * "Master cylinder" (hydraulics/automotive) or "master bedroom" (real estate) - claimed to be a dog whistle aimed at supporters of slavery.
 * "Blacklist" and "whitelist" (spam filtering) - claimed to be a dog whistle aimed at racists.
 * And of course all of the existing examples in this article.
 * Every one of the above can be sourced in the meaning of "this RS shows that this notable group/individual called that dog whistling". Not a single one can be sourced in the meaning of "this RS shows that this example actually is dog whistling" -- we only have people's opinions supporting the latter.
 * The key to understading the reaction of Wikipedia editors is that there are three POVs on this:
 * POV #1: accusations of dog whistling are always false: look at the list and reject any example which seems to the editor reading the list to be an obviously accurate description.
 * POV #2: accusations of dog whistling are always true: look at the list and reject any example which seems to the editor reading the list to be an obviously inaccurate description.
 * POV #3: accusations of dog whistling are sometimes true and sometimes false: look at the list and reject any attempt to only use examples that are obviously accurate or obviously inaccurate.
 * My theory is that an editor's POV may cause them to accept some examples and reject others. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Content about (alleged) dog whistles should only be kept if WP:DUE—that is, multiple sources have discussed the example as a dog whistle—regardless of whether editors consider them "true" or "false". This is not "List of alleged dog whistles". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dog-whistle (politics) → Dog whistle (politics) – I see that the title was recently moved, but the change was incomplete and grammatically incorrect. As "dog whistle" here is being used now as a noun, not an adjective, the hyphen should have been removed (which was the actual result of the prior discussion). While I could conceivably file it as Annu controversial technical request based on that discussion and the simple grammatical error, I figured this article, being in an area fraught with possible pitfalls, should be handled with a formal move request oknazevad (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems like a perfectly reasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The hyphen would be correct if the article title were still Dog-whistle politics, but the move to the noun+disambiguator form makes it redundant. Tevildo (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support VR talk 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry I missed this. Isn't the current title somewhat against the spirit of the preference for natural disambiguation qualifiers over parenthetical qualifiers? On the other hand, I am aware of multiple discussions higher up on this very talk page stating that "dog-whistle politics" is uncommon as a term compared to "dog whistle" alone, so this is admittedly not a strong argument for anything. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant expert quotation(s)
Is there a reason to include the quotation attributed to Pinker, who doesn't work on dog whistles, when we have the citation to the work of two linguists who have published on the topic? Both sentences highlight the deniability of dog whistles. It's true that Pinker is more notable, but surely that alone doesn't make his stance here relevant, right? I suppose I don't have anything against including it, I just don't see what it adds, considering that he's not an expert on the subject of dog whistles. I'd be very happy to hear a good motivation for including it! (sincerely!)

And if the quotations are both to be left in, is there a reason that the sources are attributed differently? (By that I mean, "University of Arizona associate professor of linguistics Robert Henderson" versus "Harvard linguist Steven Pinker", as opposed to "Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker", or simply referring to all three as "linguist".) Is there a reason to include the job titles and departments for Henderson & McCready, but not for Pinker? I recognize, again, that he's more notable, but the lack of parallelism between the nominals seems odd to me, like it's flagging something (and I'm not sure what). Can these be made more parallel? MalignantMouse (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with whatever titles anyone chooses. Go ahead and make them the same.


 * I think that just because a relatively unknown associate professor publishes one paper on dogwhistling -- and doesn't publish it in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal but rather in an artificial intelligence symposium -- that this is a good reason why we should prefer their opinion to that of a linguist who was named in Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People, Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers, and who has won awards from the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution, and the Cognitive Neuroscience Society. The presumption is that Pinker is an expert in all areas of linguistics.


 * The underlying principle I chose for inclusion is this:


 * Much like the case with recovered memories, child molestation, and sexual assault, there exists a small minority that say that unless there is hard evidence (there often isn't, and you have the word of the accuser against the word of the accused) all accusations are false. There is a somewhat larger minority who say that all unproven accusations are true. So we get the perverse result of innocent people being hounded out of jobs, and guilty people getting away with it because people have cried wolf one time too many.


 * In my opinion, NPOV calls for having the article cover both the always innocent and always guilty views, but only as the fringe views they are, and in general to inform the reader that both true accusations and false accusations exist. I have read the paper by Henderson & McCready, and it never even hints that false accusations of dogwhistling exist. Not a hint that the dogwhistle may only exist in the imagination of the listener. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining.


 * Just for the record, McCready & Henderson have also published more technical pieces on dogwhistles, including a paper from the proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (peer-reviewed, highly respected in the semantics/pragmatics subfields) and a chapter in an edited Brill volume called Secondary Content, both in 2019. The reason I cited the piece from the AI symposium is that, exactly because it was written for a non-expert audience, it is shorter and likely more approachable than the other articles. But, this is for these authors a research project, not just a single publication.


 * And I think it's not a safe presumption to make, that any scholar is an expert on all subfields, let alone topics, within a field. - MalignantMouse (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, zero objection to citing McCready & Henderson. Strong objection to not citing Pinker. We don't remove citations to a Harvard Linguist because one editor thinks that they have no expertise in the specific area of linguistics that they are writing about. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I just reverted the following edit:

MalignantMouse made the edit despite the discussion we had at Talk:Steven Pinker.


 * "I am, among other things, a descriptive linguist: a card-carrying member of the Linguistic Society of America who has written many articles and books on how people use their mother tongue, including words and constructions that are frowned on by the purists." -- Steven Pinker, in his book The Sense of Style.


 * "Harvard linguist points out the 58 most commonly misused words and phrases ... In his latest book, "The Sense of Style," Harvard cognitive scientist and linguist Steven Pinker explores the most common words and phrases that people stumble over."


 * "Dr. Steven Pinker: Cognitive Psychologist, Linguist, and Author"


 * "Linguistics can often feel impenetrable to outsiders, the debates disconnected from reality; Pinker fashioned those arcane controversies into bestseller material"


 * "In the latest entry of 7 Questions to a Linguist, ALTA Language Services caught up with psycholinguistics wunderkind Dr. Steven Pinker."


 * "The first thing to note is the letter’s acknowledgment that the denunciation itself and its call for the Linguistic Society of America to remove Pinker from its list of 'distinguished academic fellows and media experts' are not grounded in any claim about Pinker’s scholarly chops. The signatories have no concern about his 'academic contributions as a linguist, psychologist and cognitive scientist.'"


 * "A Harvard Linguist's (and Bill Gates's Favorite Author) 13 Simple Tips for Becoming a Great Writer: Writing well is hard, but Steven Pinker managed to boil the essentials down to just 13 tweet-length tips."

Again, Steven Pinker is a linguist who was named in Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People, Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers, who has won awards from the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution, and the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, A fellow of the the Linguistic Society of America, and who has written multiple books --both academic and popular --on linguistics.

Could it be that the real objection to citing Pinker is because so many of the current accusations of dog whistling are pointed at Team Red? If (and I am only speculating, not accusing -- this may be an unconscious bias, or I may be wrong) this is the case, remember, next year it could be Team Blue who is accused of dog whistling. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I made the edit after you gave your approval:


 * Not sure I understand the revert, given this explicit go-ahead.


 * Would you prefer instead the other parallel formulation I (also) proposed, where all three are called simply "linguist", as opposed to (what I just tried to enact) calling all three by their professional titles? Say so, and I'll make that change instead.


 * No speculation about my "real objection" is warranted here, nor is any reference to "Team[s]". I made my preference for parallelism clear, and you expressed approval. Why the backtrack? - MalignantMouse (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies for being unclear. I thought you were objecting to "University of Arizona associate professor of linguistics" vs. "Harvard Linguist" and thought you wanted to either use University of Arizona Linguist" or "Harvard university professor and linguist". I didn't imagine that you would try to label Pinker writing on linguistics as anything other than what multiple reliable sources call him; a linguist.


 * I also apologize for being unclear about all of us (myself included) having to be aware of possible unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * drive-by comments: (1) re inclusion of RS sources with differing viewpoints, see WP:DUE. (2) It seems to me that the paragraph containing these cites goes to meaning and belongs in the Origin and meaning section, not in the WP:LEAD section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with both being moved, but not with moving Pinker and leaving Henderson and McCready in the lead. I believe that both are DUE. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No objections to moving both to Origin and meaning. Going to update the titles (all to simply "linguist", across the board) but leave them where they are, for the moment. Someone who has the time (including possibly some future version of me) may incorporate both quotes into the later section as they see fit. - MalignantMouse (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

criticism section
The Henderson and McCready article shouldn't be in the "criticism" section. It's not a criticism of the concept of dogwhistles; it's explaining a characteristic of dogwhistles that may make them hard to detect, but this doesn't mean that it denies the existence of dogwhistles or the usefulness of the context. Mwphil (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes whether dogwhistles exist. The criticism section is aimed at the commonly expressed POV that all accusations of dogwhistling are automatically true and that all denials of dogwhistling are automatically false. NPOV requires that we present the view that dogwhistling exists and that false accusations of dogwhistling exist. Your comment shows your assumptions. Henderson and McCready are not talking about "a characteristic of dogwhistles that may make them hard to detect". That would imply that there are true examples of dogwhistling that are detected and true examples of dogwhistling that are undetected or hard to detect. They are talking about the difficulty of distinguishing dogwhistles from false accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Then I think it's worth rewriting the section to make clear that it is directed at that POV, because as it stands it comes across as a criticism of the entire concept. It is labeled "criticism" and the first sentence frames it as a criticism of the concept.


 * I would also question whether it is a commonly expressed POV that all accusations of dogwhistling are automatically true; do you have a citation for that?


 * In any case, I'd be happy to rewrite this section so as to clear it up. Mwphil (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I should be more precise; what happens is that someone accuses a politician of dogwhistling, then someone who really hates that politician thinks that the accusation is automatically true because of courser it is; the politician is an evil racist.


 * I have no problem with a rewrite as long as it preserves the basic idea that accusations of dogwhistling -- even accusations of dogwhistling by evil racist politicians -- may be true or false and that it is difficult to tell which is which, much less being able to prove it. As long as you don't lose that basic concept, rewrite away. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried a rewrite to clarify that the question is that it's difficult to tell whether purported dog whistles are in fact dog whistles! Mwphil (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A balanced lead (and maybe the article too)
The article Lead mentions of a common "Dog whistle" for the Conservatives but I would like to see a similar example for liberal politics too. My 5 minute research couldn't find any such example. Moreover in the entire article, while there are examples of Liberal parties in each of the mentioned country being accused of Dog whistle, I don't see any example of a proper liberal policy being Dog whistle-ed, you know like the phrase family values. I can't find any good examples either.... wait isn't "dreamer" used by American liberals a good example of Dog whistle? At least in my Liberal Indian opinion it is pretty much dog whistle. But yup i can't find any sources for it--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DCA0:3F40:E064:35C:2444:22D1 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
The accusation of a statement being a dog whistle and not being able to prove it, I would argue, is in fact a conspiracy theory. It is unfounded speculation that a group is secretly communicating with coded language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dlarez. Peer reviewers: Courtneywray.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Per Capita
Should we include this paragraph on "per capita" as a dog whistle? It's cited to some raw FBI data, and the content's author also cited an ADL piece and an article in Detester in an edit summary. None of these sources refer to "per capita" as a dog whistle. The latter two sources refer to a propensity of some conservatives to use the code "13/52" or "13/90" as shorthand for an argument about Black violence. I'm not sure I would count "hard" coded language like that as a dog whistle, which usually has some "hiding in plain sight" to it. Regardless, I don't think inclusion is wise without reliable sources that are explicit about "dog whistle". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, absolutely not. I regret not going straight to ANI or AIV after my revert, and that's what needs to happen if the IP editor persists in adding this.  The sources they suggest don't support inclusion, and are clearly only being used to try to justify adding material routinely used to demonize black people.  AGF is not plausible here.  The "despite being 13%" meme is no different from a 14/88 reference.  Nobody who adds it is acting in good faith, ever.  Squeakachu (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)