Talk:Fourteen Words

Terminology
The Fourteen Words are a Neo-Nazi slogan which was coined by formerly imprisoned The Order member, David Lane. They state "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children." It is often used as a recruiting tool at places like gun shows and is commonly used as a greeting by fellow Neo-Nazis to affirm ones affiliation with White Pride. It is also often spraypainted or used to deface property in order to mark "turf" in prisons and other urban areas so it is also considered a gang symbol.

Changed from neo-nazi to white nationalist. If someone say 'Future for black children' is he a black neo-nazi ? AlV 09:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I think you're a white neo-nazi or at least a nazi sympathizer.
 * No, I think he's just enforcing the NPoV. I too hate these people, but the correct term for these racist freaks should be used.
 * agreed. In normal discourse I'd call them nazis, but for an academic article white nationalist or supremacist should be used. The Ungovernable Force 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to applaud your candid admission of hate. Although I find hate speech deplorable, whether it be from Nazis or Wikipedia editors, it is refreshing to see you so openly acknowledge your own hate here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.227.218 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with hating Nazis. Jibal (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Anarchist 14 words?
''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)


 * I can't find any trace of their usage on the Internet. -Will Beback 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The Anarchist 14 Words are in his book "The Anarchists".--Munn 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've referenced the paragraph. --Malthusian (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub?
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)

Now that we've got the Anarchist section back in, referenced, I'm removing the stub template. I'm not overly familiar with stub usage but it does seem that we've expanded this beyond that point. --Malthusian (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Nazi but
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).

The Order was a Supremacist group?
Was it a supremacist group or a nationalist group? MichiganLake (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * See The Order (group). Spylab (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Took out the ADL reference
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)

Bottom of the page..
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)

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

Addition of See Also section
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)
 * 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)

Notability?
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)

Image
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)


 * Wikipedia isn't a venue for Nazi apologetics. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Removed prisoner image
I removed the image of a prisoner with a large amount of tattoos because it was an extremely provocative image that has no direct relation to the topic at hand. Would an article about apples be improved by starting with an image of a prisoner with an apple tattoo? 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, if (rather than the fruit) we were writing an article about images of apples being used as part of a niche identity. Apples, of course, aren't used to identify someone as being part of one or more radical groups.


 * In the present case, "14" (in reference to a racist slogan) is shown clustered with "88" (a code number for "Heil Hitler"), "SKIN HEAD" (referring to groups often associated with racially-motivated violence), swastikas (a symbol prominently used by the Nazis), the insignia of the SS (the group in charge of the Nazis racial genocide), etc. The prisoner white supremacist skinhead murderer proudly displays it with the rest of his collection as he lives out the rest of his sentence.


 * If apples were used as a symbol by racists and this article was about that use and the murderer included it in his collection of flair, the photo would be great in that article as well. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There's also the word FUN on his chin. I'll post this on the articles for fun and chins. 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the word "fun". It's F(swastika)U(swastika)N(swastika). If we had an article for "fuck you, nigger", that would be an excellent choice as, again, it's another piece of this finely curated collection of racist job stoppers. (Incidentally, if anyone ever starts an article for "job stopper", I have an image suggestion for you.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What percentage of people who count themselves as racist, white nationalist, white supremacist or other hate groups, have a tattoo on their face? Linking these two things is unproductive and implants an image in the mind of viewers that all racists are likely to look like the attached image. Racists come from all walks of life, and can look like the most upstanding members of society. Should the article on crime in America have a picture of a black man because black men commit most of the crime in America, capita? I find this discussion extremely problematic. 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is about the 14 words. There's a photograph that illustrates the use of the number 14 alongside other neo-Nazi symbols. Nobody's implying that all neo-Nazis have facial tattoos or whatever you think is going on. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a proper use of the image - you wouldn't put an image of a nasty car crash on the top of the automobile page. Likewise this image doesn't belong here. Go spread your hatred elsewhere. Editan2018 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have an image that more suitably serves to illustrate Fourteen Words & meets the CC0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA licensing requirements as specified by Wikimedia Commons, then by all means upload it to Commons. Then we can have discussion about putting that new image at the top & moving the prisoner image to elsewhere in the article. Otherwise you are just whistling Dixie. Peaceray (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, the current image doesn't have that license, but is a "fair use" image. I'm not sure that fair use extends to using it in this article and as of now, there is no specific rationale for that on the file description page. If we're using an non-free image there are perhaps better examples like Centurion (4) - Fourteen Words. Sjö (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There are conflicting tags on the files page. As a U.S. federal government image, it is public domain. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that before. Anyway, ChiveFungi removed the fair use tag so now there's no doubts about the licensing. Sjö (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Greengrocer apostrophes
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 Manual of Style, 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)

Is there proof that Alan Berg was really Jewish?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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))
 * 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)

DHS on Feb 2018
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)


 * 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)


 * I deleted the section. I've been familiar with many conspiracy theories, but these are the most stupid ones and require no effort. Using some cryptic combination of letters and numbers to prove a conspiracy is just BS. Divination is the most amazing thing ever when compared to finding the number 666 somewhere and concluding that Satan must be behind it. w umbolo   ^^^  16:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

If the above discussion does not constitute a consensus as to whether this section should be removed, please let me know what would in fact count as such. As discussed above the section is poorly written and does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. As a compromise, we could move the content to a bullet point under Advocates/United States. J h773 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2017
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)


 * 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)

Which RS cites him? Would be useful to add a quote to whichever one does. Hayes seems notable enough in his own right to include mention of his connection, even if we didn't have another party reporting on him doing so. I think Hayes is that RS who directly explains the significance:
 * 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)

Removed Misleading Image
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)


 * 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)


 * The two IPs are the same editor. That editor is also and  or a meatpuppet. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply so if this is not in the correct format I apologise. I am not a sockpuppet, and I would like to see any evidence because there isn't any. What a simple way to shut down discussion. Good job. 219.88.161.199 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the issue on your talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Orphaned references in Fourteen Words
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: </li> <li>From Hal Turner: </li> <li>From David Lane (white supremacist): </li> </ul>

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)

"Race" not "People"?
A recent edit was made declaring that the "proper" set of 14 Words is with "race" instead of "people" which all sources indicates is inaccurate. In fact, David Lane was big into numerology and so-called "Hermetic coding" and believed himself to be the so-called "666 Man" and the "Joseph Smith of Wotanism". With that being said, in the simple English Gematria, both sets of "14 Words" add up to 741. David Lane was deist and pagan, he was not a Christian. The number 741 is "Lucifer's number", Lucifer in David's scheme being reason and the light of knowledge. All available sources indicate that "race" was never used by David nor popularized in the first set of 14 Words, though of course Aryan is used in the second set which is basically historically inaccurate.64.134.171.78 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone else put the version with "race" in the article and I moved it without noticing the difference, probably because I've seen that version before. The version with "race" has been used and it might be WP:DUE to mention in the article(Norwalk Residents Find White Supremacist Fliers Near HomesThe White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!"White nationalist flyering on American college campusesOhio lawmaker criticizes efforts to remove Confederate monuments), but if there is no source that says that Lane used that version perhaps it's not that important.
 * But there is no doubt that the phrase belongs in the lede per WP:LEDE that says the lede should summarise the most important information in the article, so I put the "people" version in the lede with the ADL ref. Sjö (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Russian cake image
Probably the editor who uploaded it to Commons IP hopping. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * file:///D:/saves/Cursed_graffiti_in_Volzhsky.jpg Цйфыву (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings
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)

Hm...Sorry I hadn't checked the sources. Fourteen Words Cinadon36 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Anning
Added Anning to the list of Advocates under "other nations".

his recent tweet ended with a thinly veiled version of the 14 words. I cannot be seen as accidental given his staff (https://thewhiterosesociety.writeas.com/fraser-annings-neo-nazi-connections), and history of inserting phrases into speeches, and open desire to return to the white australia policy.

White nationalists vs. white supremecists
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. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-American"
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)

White Supremacist in lede
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)
 * 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)
 * 47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Civil liberties violation sentence
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)

Previous edit/undo action
I agree that the previous edit attempt does not correctly identify the argument and does not provide enough data to warrant change. However, the argument does appear to be valid.

Common definitions show "far left" or "the far left" as the noun form:

"far-left" looks to be defined as an adjective:

These sites speak to "compound modifiers/adjectives":

The phrase is: "Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem"

Found Here:

Considering the references it does appear that "far left" or "the far left" is the noun and "far-left" is a compound modifier/adjective describing "groups" in the phrase above. I don't think the entire entry should be removed but I do think the portion referencing 14 words should be, as it does appear to be 15 words.

So, the entry would read:

"The re-election campaign for Donald Trump, the President of the USA, ran 88 adverts on Facebook on 17 June 2020. The adverts were removed the following day for using a red triangle to represent political dissidents, a symbol that had previously been used by the Nazis for the same purpose."[38] [39]

Let me know what you guys think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustPerusing (talk • contribs) 10:36, June 20, 2020 (UTC)


 * The independent reliable source cited says it is fourteen words. That someone's original research determines otherwise is of no consequense. It is verifiably fourteen words. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Calling Donald Trump an "advocate" based on the number of words in a sentence is really a stretch into conspiracy theory territory. 14 words in a sentence is pretty much average for English and the inverted red triangle is by no means exclusive to Nazis . Not to mention that red/yellow triangles are universal symbols for warning, which was the intent of the ad.73.40.216.70 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The exact wording was "The re-election campaign for Donald Trump". I personally think they were duped by one of their staffers. Certainly the additional coincidence of the campaign releasing 88 ads adds to my suspicion.
 * Others have reached similar conclusions:
 * Peaceray (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A psychological journal isn't really a good source of expertise on the topic of historic symbolism. There is a Belgian anti-fascist website called "red triangle" that discusses the inverted red triangle as a symbol for anti-fascism . Also, with respect to the number of ads, how long was it between the ads being posted and them being taken down? It seems like it could have been the case that 88 out of some higher number of planned ads were posted before being taken down, thus the 88 number was a result of coincidental timing. Also, while yes, the working was "The re-election campaign for Donald Trump", it's obvious by the wording of the ads themselves that the intention was to call attention to the violence by "far-left" groups across the nation, which could easily be referring to Antifa given they are by definition anti-fascist.73.40.216.70 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your original research. However, Wikipedia does not use original research. We report what independent reliable sources say. Those sources say 14 words, 88 ads, Hologaust symbolism. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except Psychology Today is a reliable resource for psychology, not historical political symbolism. You wouldn't trust them to engineer a bridge just because they are an "independent reliable source", right? So why should they be considered a valid source of information for some other topic they do not specialize in?
 * Also, Donald Trump is the only cited activist who does not explicitly use 14/88, directly quote the Fourteen Words, or make directly claims about promoting white power. In addition, for somebody who is allegedly advocating a neo-Nazi ideology, why would he do so in such a cryptic way and then deny its' use? . Wikipedia's own definition for activism involves making an effort to promote change. Unless you can cite evidence that the indirect use of symbolism allegedly illustrated by the numbers 14 and 88 in the ad campaign is a common example of activism, then this is not an example of activism.
 * I propose a compromise: Since Donald Trump is (A) not making explicit reference to the Fourteen Words or the Heil Hitler numerology and (B) denied supporting it, then we should split the "advocates" section in two: "Self-proclaimed Advocates" (those who have explicitly referenced the Fourteen Words or 14/88) and "Alleged Advocates" (those two have not explicitly referenced the Fourteen Words but have done one or more things which could imply support for the Fourteen Words).73.40.216.70 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see lots more pointless original research being added to support your opinion.
 * I find it rather extraordinary that we will suddenly demand a Harvard symbologist or suddenly find it somehow controversial that an inverted, red equalateral triangle, a very well-known Nazi concentration camp badge, might somehow end up in a context with 14/88, commonly used neo-Nazi symbols. Yes, the article is in Psychology Today, saying "Symbols are powerful mass identity manipulation tools." I guess you'll want someone with a Ph.D. in "Mass Identity Manipulation". IMO, Dr. Moskalenko, widely published on radicalization and political use of social media is on topic. In addition to Psychology Today, the remarkable constellation of coincidences was noted by Salon, Washington Post, Reuters, The Forward, Mother Jones, ADL, Politico, NPR, Media Matters, etc.
 * What I'm not seeing, anonymous, is anyone else disputing the reliability of the source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cited a Wikipedia page and a news site, the former of which is by definition not OR, and the latter is the same type of source you have cited. Stop trying to evade the argument by falsely claiming OR. I don't see why it should be extraordinary to ask that an expert on X topic should be used as a source for X topic. To further illustrate why Psychology Today is a bad source, their claim as to why those two derived (not explicitly stated) numbers and one geometric shape constitute the conscious use of neo-Nazi ideology is as follows "A mentor used to say, 'once is a coincidence; twice is a tendency; three times is a rule.' So it would seem that in this case, the red triangle may not just be a red triangle, that it may stand for something else.". They arbitrarily cite "a mentor" who said some arbitrary saying without mention of who that is or why that saying holds any logic, and then proceed to use that as a means to tie two derived (not explicitly stated) numbers and one symbol to make their point.
 * The reason why you don't see sources rebutting it, is because saying "Trump doesn't support neo-Nazi's" isn't sensational, whereas "Trump supports neo-Nazis" is, not to mention that for obvious reasons, Donald Trump is a popular topic that is a highly divisive figure covered by media outlets . Furthermore, implying that a lack of reference material to a rebuttal is evidence for the claim being true is an argument from ignorance.
 * So again, I propose a compromise where we split the "Advocates" in two: "Self-proclaimed Advocates" (those who have explicitly referenced the Fourteen Words or 14/88) and "Alleged Advocates" (those two have not explicitly referenced the Fourteen Words but have done one or more things which could imply support for the Fourteen Words). That would seem to be the honest way of displaying it, because calling somebody an "advocate" when they have publicly denied support is antithetical to advocacy, and therefore it doesn't make any sense to call them an advocate.73.40.216.70 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You cited a source for "In addition, for somebody who is allegedly advocating a neo-Nazi ideology, why would he do so in such a cryptic way and then deny its' use?" The source, however, doesn't seem to ask that question.
 * "Wikipedia's own definition..." is 1) not a reliable source and 2) not discussing whether or not Donald Trump was referring to 14/88. Using it to discuss this topic is original research.
 * I did not say the absence of sources countering the claim said anything at all about its veracity. In fact, I haven't said anything about its veracity at all. It is, however, verifiable. I have said that you are the only one putting forth various arguments that are not made by reliable sources. Those arguemnts are original research.
 * You "compromise" to divide the list into categories you devised is not a compromise. The sources do not say "Trump is an alleged advocate". The source, a scholar published widely on radicalization and political use of social media asks, "For what purpose would the President's re-election campaign transmit these symbols?" Dr. Moskalenko finds, "symbols can contribute to radicalization by highlighting mass identity, and by increasing stereotyping and rejection of the out-group....A White Power symbol posted by the U.S. president’s re-election campaign, 'Team Trump,' helps to legitimize the alt-right movement. When the symbol is shared by the U.S. president himself and by Vice President Pence, observers might wonder if many people actually condone the alt-right movement's goals and values." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just labeling things arbitrarily as OR to avoid discussion. The sources I am using to make my case for why the section should be split is all of the sources used for those alleged advocates in the article itself, as my point revolves around the exact nature of the claim to advocacy.
 * That being said, seeing as a Wikipedia admin has now just directly stated that this website is not a valid source of information, and therefore all of those sources I cited are not valid due to being part of a Wikipedia article, then I see no reason why I should need to provide any reliable source of information to begin with if this website itself isn't a reliable source. For that matter, I see no reason to further this discussion as the goalposts are effectively impossible to reach as everything is just labeled OR or self-published while being allegedly refuted by a source that use an arbitrary saying to make a point (something arguably close to a thought-terminating cliche) simply because the source has credibility. Putting credibility above logical deduction is the rhetorical equivalent of valuing aristocracy over meritocracy.73.40.216.70 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That being said, seeing as a Wikipedia admin has now just directly stated that this website is not a valid source of information, and therefore all of those sources I cited are not valid due to being part of a Wikipedia article, then I see no reason why I should need to provide any reliable source of information to begin with if this website itself isn't a reliable source. For that matter, I see no reason to further this discussion as the goalposts are effectively impossible to reach as everything is just labeled OR or self-published while being allegedly refuted by a source that use an arbitrary saying to make a point (something arguably close to a thought-terminating cliche) simply because the source has credibility. Putting credibility above logical deduction is the rhetorical equivalent of valuing aristocracy over meritocracy.73.40.216.70 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The links you have presented do not discuss the 14/88 claim re Trump's ads. "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." WP:OR A link to how many words are in an average sentence is not directly related to this article or the subject being discussed. QED


 * I have no idea where you see that "a Wikipedia admin has now just directly stated that this website is not a valid source of information". I see Sjö, an administrator undid an anonymous user's removal of a wikilink to Donald Trump. The IP removed the link because their original research says it's 15 words. Sjö correctly observes that the argument is "spurious".


 * Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. That's one of the pilars of the project. If independent reliable sources said that Donald Trump is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would report that Donald Trump is a cheese sandwich. That you can point to definitions of "cheese", "sandwich" and "cheese sandwich" then prove beyond any doubt that Trump is not cheese between two pieces of bread or a lunch food of any sort is immaterial. Trump would verifiably be a cheese sandwich.


 * That there are people who would love to spend all day arguing and attempting to "prove" whether or not the Earth is flat, germs cause disease, human beings evolved from a common ancestor with apes or anything else is not part of this project. The Earth is verifiably spherical, germs verifiably cause disease, etc. If you would like to change that policy, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Until then, this page will report what the independent reliable source says.


 * (Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is user edited. At any time there are hundreds of thousands of errors/lies/whatever scattered throughout our millions of articles. There is no editorial staff reviewing those edits before they go live, unlike, say Psychology Today with has the author (with a doctorate and a relevant CV writing the article), a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy along with an editorial staff reviewing the article before publication. If Wikipedia said a town north of the Arctic Circle was over 100 degrees Fahrenheit last week, I'd immediately suspect vandalism or an error. If the New York Times or Psychology Today reported it, I'd say "Wow!" and start discussing it with my colleagues and friends.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, did not realise what a hornets nest I was getting myself into. Well anyway, here are my two cents worth:
 * The sources do not meet the reliability threshold. One is in the perennial sources list as biased and/or opinionated, the other one is a personal blog. The fact that it's written by scientist adds some weight to the statements, but is not enough to demonstrate notability.
 * Even then, the sources do not state that the Trump campaign advocates the fourteen words. Media Matters does not even mention the connection with the fourteen words. The blog uses veiled words to suggest that "it may stand for something else" (referring to the red triangle).
 * Even then, the assertion that the Trump campaign tried to express support for the fourteen words in this way is a fringe theory that should not be included. The reliable sources that have covered this incident make no mention of 14 and 88.  While the incident may be notable, the connection to 14 and 88 is not. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Page one of the search results show coverage of the 14/88 "coincidence" coinciding with the meaningless Nazi symbol in Vox, Salon, Variety, Mother Jones, Los Angeles Times, Media Matters, The New York Times and a host of others.
 * While WP:RSP does list some of those as potentially biased and requiring in-line attribution, that is not the same as "unreliable". Others, of course, are simply reliable sources. How many sources discussing the use of a "Fourteen Words" reference by the President of the United States (with and without the 88 reference and the Concentration Camp symbol) do you need to show that it is relevant? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one, but as of now there are none. So I went through the trouble of looking up the sources you suggested.
 * Vox : Does not mention 14 or fourteen.
 * Salon : Biased or opinionated, attribution required. Does note the fourteen words, and the connection with white supremacy, but does not conclude this constitutes endorsement or advocacy of the fourteen words by (the) Trump (campaign).
 * Variety : Does not mention 14 or fourteen.
 * Mother Jones : Biased, attribution definitely required in this case. Does note the fourteen words, and the connection with white supremacy, but does not conclude this constitutes endorsement or advocacy of the fourteen words by (the) Trump (campaign).
 * Los Angeles Times : Does not mention 14 or fourteen.
 * Media Matters : As discussed above, does not mention 14 or fourteen. It is noted in the comment section, but that cannot be used as a source in any way.
 * The New York Times : As discussed above, does not mention 14 or fourteen.
 * You need to cherry pick sources and apply a generous dose of original research to arrive at the conclusion that Trump or his campaign advocate the fourteen words. It's a fringe theory. It's also a contentious claim on a living person. It's got to go. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it is problematic to list the incident under Advocates, together with people who openly express their support for the ideas in the fourteen words. The current text in the article don't say that Trump or anyone in his campaign organization advocates those ideas, and that makes it a borderline BLP violation. Still, it seems DUE to include it somewhere in the article. Perhaps under a separate heading that doesn't imply advocacy? Sjö (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with proper attribution, I don't see how this would work. Those sources do not explicitly state causality, they simply imply a connection. I agree that it's all very coincidental, but I don't think we should have a section reading 'coincidences that may not be coincidences'. I'd say the whole situation should be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, but limited to what the mainstream sources have to say about it. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

88 signifying "Heil Hitler" on Page 69 of book Gods of the Blood by Mattias Gardell
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)
 * 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)

Where are the actual fourteen words in quotes
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)
 * 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)