Talk:Triple parentheses

Redirects - are there any?
I've created (((Echoes))), do we need others? Doug Weller talk 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In the UK at least, this punctuation is called a bracket. Although this is a predominantly US trend, the name "triple brackets" is used in reliable sources &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I created (((echo))) and Triple brackets. — Gorthian (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also added an entry at Echo (disambiguation). — Gorthian (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Creator
Why is does the article not mention the (())'s creator Morrakiu?

This man deserves his own wikipedia article.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Morrakiu/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.247.123 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * IP: You can not possibly justify a Wikipedia article for every person or group with a YouTube channel. Do third-party sources talk about this man? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no such channel Morrakiu on Youtube anyhow and this reads like an attempt at spam. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Create request
I would like to make a formal request to redirect (()) → Triple parentheses, but the page is currently blacklisted. It would make sense if it redirected here. — Confession0791 talk 00:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , you need to take your request to the Administrators' Noticeboard. — Gorthian (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. — xaosflux  Talk 01:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

British English Terminology
Parentheses are known as Brackets in the UK. Perhaps this could be noted in the article 86.135.11.73 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Gorthian (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reappropriation
Why no discussion of the reappropriation of the (((echo)))? I added this but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:337E:80A1:FEA9:FFC3:1C6B (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's already there, in the third sentence of the "Response" section. — Gorthian (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It should also be mentioned right from the introduction. Over social networks, the use of brackets is -mostly qualifying antisemit speech / -mostly designating antinazi accounts. Balayka (talk 09:26 !6 August 2018 (UTC)

Review appropriation. Triple parentheses are being used for other meanings as of recent. The current meaning should be considered as "Alternate uses" where as the new meaning should be moved into "Use". Atherial (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources we can cite? — Gorthian (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not notable
WP:NOT#KNOWYOURMEME, seriously. 74.12.94.10 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, ADL, etc. seem perfectly adequate here. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This was all over the mainstream media for weeks, and passes WP:GNG easily. -- The Anome (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * i don't think the mainstream media has any metaphorical horse in this race. why would the mainstream media care about jews unless you're trying to make some implication about a conspiracy theory? 75.98.102.138 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected
Given the recent intensive flurry of vandalism, I have semi-protected this article for a ten-day period. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jargon
The word "markup" is a computer term, but its use here to describe extra parentheses is jargon, or slang, which makes the writing seem childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.120.133 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would probably be more correct to use "notation" instead of markup. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead's implication that Trump supporters are antisemitic
The last sentence of the lead paragraph currently reads: "'The triple parentheses have been adopted as an online stigma by antisemites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists to identify individuals of Jewish background as targets for online harassment, such as Jewish journalists critical of Donald Trump, Republican Party winner of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.'" Yes, the statement is supported by the sources. But is it really necessary to single this out as an example? Of everything that could follow "such as" in this sentence, we seem to be picking the one thing that's asking for the most trouble. Looking at the edit history, it's already been removed multiple times. Of course, it's no secret that there's a significant faction of white nationalists, antisemites, what-have-you among Trump supporters. But the large majority are not. Surely I'm not the only one who sees a potential NPOV issue here. Lizard (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking into more of the sources, I've had a change of heart and am starting to think it may be justifiable. Lizard  (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Trump is used as a reference no less than 4 times in this one short article. This looks a little biased. Isnt it enough to merely state once that it is being used online against critics of Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.218.110 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree on the lead. It doesn't fairly represent the use of the symbol, and I don't think there's any way to include a single example that would do that. Additionally the symbol doesn't make the article anymore informative then it would be without, EG; "The triple parentheses have been adopted as an online stigma by antisemites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists to identify individuals of Jewish background as targets for online harassment". I've removed it on this basis. However I disagree on the other references. I agree that the focus on trump is a NPOV problem, but I think its something can be improved by expanding the use section and bringing in other sources, it's mostly just an issue of undue weight being given to Mic. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a clear implication, it's simply a specific example that was pretty widespread. However, I don't think it's central to the article, just the most well-documented and extrensive example of its use. I've reinstated it for the time being, pending consensus.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that there hasn't been a single objection in the three years this discussion has been open I don't think it's fair to say that consensus is pending WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Additionally we have a section for examples and the use by trump supporters is mentioned there, the issue is that using the use by a single politician's supporters as the example in the lead undermines the NPOV of the article by giving disproportionate weight to that specific exampleWP:PROPORTION. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have consensus to remove it, so I've restored it. Seems like a clear and justifiable example to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We have had a discussion in which multiple users over three years have agreed with the change, with no objections. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT that is consensus. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The original proposer (from ~30 months ago) withdrew their proposed change minutes after making it. Two comments from two anonymous IP users separated by a year and a half similarly do not constitute consensus. Your bold edit has been rejected and it's incumbent upon you to gain consensus for the change now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TRS
The TRS Lexicon is cited as the source of a direct quote, but the link is dead, so I added an archive link, but it was reverted. That makes no sense. Either it should be included, or the entire quote should be removed. Benjamin (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the edit. It should still be removed though. There is no need for us to use the primary source here. — Strongjam (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Benjamin (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's WP policy to base articles on reliable published secondary sources. The primary source didn't add anything except a quote mocking the Holocaust, everything else could be sourced from the secondary source. — Strongjam (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a secondary source that contains the quote? Do you think it's relevant to understanding the cultural context of why this symbol is used in the alt right? Benjamin (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any secondary source for the quote, and I don't think it really adds anything. The article already makes it clear that it's an antisemitic blog. —Strongjam (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know whether a set of "TRS Lexicon flashcards" on Quizlet would qualify as a reasonable secondary source for the TRS Lexicon?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Time to Re-evaluate the Article's "Encyclopedic Timeliness"
I see these triple parenthesis used all the time on Gab (which is pretty much the last place anyone CAN use them), and while it's true that many anti-semites use them, the triple parenthesis are not intrinsically "anti-semitic".

Example: "Wolf Blitzer" vs. "(((Wolf Blitzer)))"

Exactly what is the "anti-semitic" message being conveyed by including "Wolf Blitzer" inside triple parenthesis, other than the simple fact that ((((Wolf Blitzer))) is a Jew? Is correctly identifying someone as Jewish always "anti-semitic"?  Is including something inside triple parenthesis always an "anti-semitic" statement? If so, then what about this:

(((2+2=4)))

Also the article is littered with 2014's, 2016's, etc... It's the current year.2605:6000:6947:AB00:B8C2:455A:2ED8:DE26 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article already explains all the answers to your questions. If you have a suggestion on how to improve this article, this is the place to add it. If you want to talk about whether or what the antisemitic message might be, or might not be, please use your User talk page for that. See WP:NOTFORUM. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking a question, I'm making a statement. The triple parenthesis are not, and cannot, be patently anti-semitic.  Prove me wrong.2605:6000:6947:AB00:B8C2:455A:2ED8:DE26 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Proving you wrong" (or right) is not what this page is about. But thank you for clarifying your intent here; it makes it much easier to do what needs to be done, which is to collapse this section per WP:TPO.   If you disagree with this, you have the right to appeal to other editors to have this section un-collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article. Collapsed off-topic material by 2605:6000:6947:AB00:B8C2:455A:2ED8:DE26 per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (Quote from the Article):

"Triple parentheses or triple brackets, also known as an (((echo))), are an antisemitic symbol that has been used to highlight the names of individuals of a Jewish background, or organizations who are thought to be owned by Jewish people."

This is the first sentence in the lede, and it's wrong. Simply indicating whether or not someone is Jewish is not intrinsically anti-semitic, and this Wikipedia Article says that it (apparently always) is. I've already proven how a symbol that indicates a person's "Jewishness" cannot be anti-Semitic using logic, therefore logically this Wikipedia Article's very first statement is exactly wrong. That's not "off-topic"; is absolutely centered on the primary assertion that this Article makes. Maybe this was believed to be the case 3 years ago (that triple parenthesis is always, 100% anti-semitic), when the triple parenthesis were new, but language has a life of it's own, and I assert that the totality of this Article is inaccurate, using outdated information from limited and biased sources, and it does not accurately reflect these symbols as they are being used today, in 2018. Please pay closer attention to what I am saying here, and stay focused on the topic.2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we base our articles on Reliable sources, and not on the logic of our contributors. If you can find such a source saying what you say, we'll likely include it. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "not on the logic of our contributors"
 * 1) Logic is not subjective.  2+2=4 no matter who says it.
 * 2) If a supposed "reliable source" says that "2+2=5", or that bracketing the name of a jewish person to indicate that they are jewish is somehow "anti-semitic", then that source cannot be considered "reliable".
 * 3) The phrase "anti-semitic" is nonsensical in this context anyways, since the class of "semites" includes arabs.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
 * 4) Sources that repeat and perpetuate nonsensical use language on the one hand, cannot be considered "reliable" on the other.  The triple parenthesis are being used to indicate Jews only.
 * 5) "Reliability" of the source material and language definitions in this context is suspect anyways, given that they are political organizations, with a political agenda and use their power and ability to influence to advance their political agendas. You don't blindly rely on the Sons of Confederate Veterans as the primary source for an unbiased Article on the Civil War.


 * Another thing to consider here is that failing to address this issue openly within the Article creates the impression that Wikipedia is both biased and nonsensical. If the Article is going to say that using special text symbols (triple parenthesis) to indicate that a person is Jewish is somehow "Anti-Semitic" without explaining HOW, it creates the clear impression that Wikipedia is blindly following the current political dogma of censorship, thought control, and political correctness.  Meaning that it IS "censored" despite all the protests and propaganda to the contrary.  Being called an "anti-semite" in today's political climate is DANGEROUS.  You can lose your job, and your career.  Allowing biased sources with a political agenda to have full control over the meaning, definition, and use of this language without questioning it, and considering that there is a political agenda behind it is the very definition of censorship.  And Wikipedia is supposed to be "not censored".  Either connect the dots, within the article, on how the use of triple parenthesis is somehow "anti" Jewish, or tell the truth, which is that the symbols are neutral, and no different than all the various ways in which Jews are separated and "highlighted" within Wikipedia itself.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews
 * 2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @IP user: User GRuban has already explained the requirement for reliable sources which is part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. While your participation here is welcome, you've already been advised at your Talk page to please confine your comments here to how to improve the article.  Personal opinion, irrelevant or off-topic comments have no place here, and are subject to collapse or removal. Claiming "logic" as a way of attempting to sneak your personal opinions in, or to engage others in a general discussion of the article's topic won't wash, either.  See WP:NOTFORUM.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The Article would be "improved" if it stopped telling the world that 2+2=5, and that putting parenthesis around the names of Jews is somehow "anti-semitic". Please stop pretending I am either "off-topic", or using the Talk Pages as a "forum".  I am exactly "on topic", as the Article is WRONG, and it would be improved if it would either be corrected ("bracketing" the names of Jews is neutral, and not "anti-semitic"), or if the Article stated clearly whatever reasoning is being used that makes bracketing the names of Jews (somehow) "anti-semitic", with the secondary point of explaining to the Wikipedia Reader, in the Article, how something that is supposedly "anti-Jewish" then gets rephrased as "anti-Semitic".  Also please stop with the ad hominem attacks ("sneaking my opinions in"), when I am openly stating exactly what I think should be done, and submitting it for discussion.  "Sneaking" is what happens when an illogical statement in a Wikipedia Article is inserted with no explanation for why or how to the Reader, and discussion of the illogical statement is suppressed by focusing on everything and anything BUT the illogical statement.  False statements like being "off topic", attempting to have a "forum discussion", that logic is somehow subjective, and that making open statements about how to improve the Article is "sneaky", pretending that raising these points for discussion somehow doesn't have anything to do with "improving the Article", and finally citing links to irrelevant Wikipedia guidelines instead of focusing on the primary statement that I've made from the very beginning, which is that bracketing the names of Jews in triple parenthesis is not intrinsically anti-semitic, and even if there is some oddball and convoluted argument that could achieve a level of consensus, it would still amount to anti-jewish because arabs are also semites and no one is bracketing the names of Arabs in triple parenthesis.  Please stop doing all of that, and please stay focused on the Article itself, and how it is wrong, and needs to be corrected.2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "I've already proven how a symbol that indicates a person's "Jewishness" cannot be anti-Semitic using logic, therefore logically this Wikipedia Article's very first statement is exactly wrong." Re-examine your logic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic material by 2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Take it to the Reference Desk. An article Talk page is not the place to discuss your theories about this. The Ref Desk, is. Mathglot (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the usage mostly inverted?
I never knew what this symbol was until today when I saw several twitter handles using it. But they mostly seem to be authentic Zionists. It's weird they would be using an anti-semitic symbol. So, it makes me suspect this article gives a completely misleading impression of its meaning. It also seems like it should be removed from the anti-semitism section. Akvadrako (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope. Just because some people are trying to appropriate it that doesn't stop it from being an being an anti-Semitic slur any more than we will ever be taking the N word off the list of racist slurs just because of NWA and the like. If the inverted usage becomes more common then we will reflect that, once reliable sources reflect it, but even then the history of the symbol will remain permanently linked to anti-Semitism. The fact that your search turned up mostly inverted uses is encouraging. It suggests that the major platforms are at least partially successful in keeping the anti-Semites under control, but go searching in the scummier part of the web and you'll still find it used as a slur. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is this a page?
The use of Triple parentheses was a pre-existing phenomena. I've seen (((good vibes))) and other such usages (ie. Here comes (((Super-Man)))!!! ) well before the alt-right briefly high jacket the use of three curved brackets. Look at the works of Guillaume Apollinaire or any text-art poet.

Why would there be a need to not only preserve an anti-semetic meaning for this common set of lines, but to then try to make it the primary and/or totality of meaning for yet another symbol? That's just idiotic. This is probably end in an AfD if it's not deleted before then. This is completely non-academic bullshit, devoid of any social value for an encyclopedia. Get rid of it. --Jobrot (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage of this phenomenon in reliable secondary sources is tied to its use as a hate symbol against the Jewish faith. Your statement is original research until it can be backed by a reliable source (apparently this can be called a "cyberhug"). ViperSnake151   Talk  06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , there's nothing stopping you from nominating it for deletion, except imho, you'd be wasting your time and that of other editors, as there has been sufficient notice taken of the phenomenon by reliable sources that it easily meets notability standards, so you'd have to try to make it fit one of the other 13 reasons, and afaict, it just doesn't.
 * That said, I have a volume of Apollinaire as well, and what you're saying about parens being used in other contexts, is not wrong. Rather than push for deletion, which I think is a doomed undertaking, why not take the other approach recommended at Alternatives to deletion and try improving the article to add the other meanings you have referred to?  Had this article been entitled, "Antisemitic typology" you couldn't add stuff about poetic use, but it isn't; it has the neutral descriptor "Triple parentheses".  As long as you can find a reference talking about that in the context of poetry (or anything else) it's perfectly appropriate to add it to the article.
 * Also, what's up with your tone, at ""? I don't get where that came from. You have an article here about a topic that has garnered notice in multiple reliable sources and is the subject some academic discourse among folks concerned with such things. How is that not a subject for an encyclopedia, while List of characters in season 1 of That Series Nobody Ever Heard Of rates an article?  Instead of ranting about it, why not just improve the article? Anything which adds another in-link to Apollinaire is a good thing. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: NPOV in lead.
Does the inclusion of the example "The triple parentheses have been adopted as an online stigma by antisemites, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists to identify individuals of Jewish background as targets for online harassment,such as Jewish political journalists critical of Donald Trump during his 2016 election campaign." harm the articles NPOV?WP:BALASP and if so are there remedies that will allow for it's inclusion? 98.179.184.17 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * see: previous discussion Lead's implication that Trump supporters are antisemitic 98.179.184.17 (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, you appear to be a fairly new user. Normally, one doesn't start right out with an Rfc, until the point of contention has been thoroughly aired and discussed, and editors have not been able to reach consensus. Imho, jumping straight to an Rfc here, is very premature.  Would you mind withdrawing the Rfc, and just holding the discussion here normally, without the formality of an Rfc based on the question you asked above?  If after significant participation there is still no decision, then you could create an Rfc.  See WP:RFCBEFORE.  If you would like to withdraw it and don't know how, just say so in a comment below, and I can do it for you.  Please add   to your message, if you do.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have withdrawn the RFC pending further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.184.17 (talk • contribs) 12:05, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I think that's the right decision. To attract other editors to the conversation, you can notify them. You have to be careful about notifying editors in a neutral way, to avoid giving the impression of just canvassing sympathetic editors to tilt a conversation the way you would like to see it go.  See WP:APPNOTE for appropriate kinds of notification.  The same page has an explanation of the kinds of notifications to avoid. These guidelines are there, to assure that any consensus reached in this discussion is a fair one, and represents a cross-section of netural editors, not just advocates for this side or that. If you need help with this, please ping me:  .  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump As The Target
Hello, there are quite a few instances online where Trump (and his family) have had their own names put in the echo parentheses, usually due to white nationalists from the "even-further-right" disgruntled by his support for the State of Israel among other reasons. If sources can be found, will this be appropriate for addition to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.234.65 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but that would depend entirely on those sources, and whether or not they meet Reliable sources. If it's an example of someone on the far right doing this, it's probably not worth mentioning. If instead it's a source discussing this behavior, it's more likely to be useful. Normally you should be bold, but for things like this, it couldn't hurt to propose changes here on this talk page for discussion, first. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)