Talk:White trash/Archive 4

class is exaggerated--Isenberg ignores slavery, segregation, nativism, and hostility to other races Says reviewers
Isenberg has been attacked by reviewers For downplaying race and nativity and over emphasizing class differences. For example, one major review states: "Indeed, during the nineteenth century, poor whites were hardly the only group that struggled: blacks and Native Americans suffered even more. Regrettably, when it comes to the connection between discrimination against poor whites and the oppression of other groups, Isenberg’s book is less than insightful. It hardly explores how slavery, segregation, and nativism (a subject she does not consider at all) shaped the U.S. class system, or how politicians (populist and otherwise) used appeals to racial solidarity to block the potential development of class-based alliances that would cross racial lines. Isenberg instead delves into a novel but not particularly illuminating argument that poor whites have come to constitute something akin to a distinct racial category, which some elites believed needed to be “bred” so as to supply a steady source of cheap labor." "The Great White Nope" by Jefferson Cowie,  Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2016),  Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to add other reliable sources to the article, but removing what a recognized expert says on that basis is not justified. Also, I can assure you that all the items you listed above are dealt with in her book to the fullest extent.  If reveiwers says that she ignored them, they are dead wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "if reveiwers says that she ignored them, they are dead wrong" how would you know that??? it sounds like the personal opinion of an anonymous editor. when one ONE scholar makes a claim then it's a fringe view: the rule is Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources = WP:FRINGELEVEL -- so we rely on reviews and when the reviewers= "current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community"  Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another reviewer --also dead wrong??? Throughout this book, such references to race are fleeting and awkward, appearing in parentheticals or occasional asides. At a time when so much of the national debate over inequality centers on racial divides, Isenberg maintains that “class has its own singular and powerful dynamic, apart from its intersection with race.” Still, it’s hard to skirt over race when dissecting class in America. At times, the author justifies her choice by implying a sort of equivalence of hardship, as when she emphasizes that Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs “targeted both urban ghettos and impoverished white areas of Appalachia” (the italics are Isenberg’s) or when she argues, somewhat improbably, that in the 1920s poor whites “found their lot comparable to suffering African Americans when it came to the justice system.” By Carlos Lozada Washington Post June 23, 2016  Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * {ec} You have cited nothing. You have reported that "historians" and "reviewers" don't agree with Isenberg, but you provide no citations to show that. You must have citations to back up your statements.  The article has citations, from an expert on the subject, I have been very careful to make certain of that in the section that I wrote. I have no objection to dissenting opinions being presented, as long as they are cited, but you cannot remove material which is properly cited, merely on the basis of your report that the material isn't proper.{{parabr{{Once again I'll say it - please provide citations to back up the opinions you are expressing.' I'll be more than happy to evaluate them, and collectively we can decide if they're appropriate for the article. In the meantime, please stop reverting, you're an intelligent man, and you've been here for quite a while and you must know that's not the way we do things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just quoted at length two major published reviews of White Trash. Jefferson Cowie, is a leading historian at Vanderbilt. they say she misses the importance of race. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the citation. If Lozada wrote that the references to race are "fleeting", then she clearly didn't read the book very carefully. A simple glance at the index shows 8 references to "blacks", 50+ references to "slaves, slavery" (all of which are about African slaves in the south), and 30 references to "race(s)", including 19 to "class and,". nd these are single page references, many of them are to multiple pages. Blacks, race, and the class distinctions in the South that put white trash in an intermedate position between "real whites" and blacks are among Isenberg's most important points.{{parabr}}Forgive me, but I get the impression that you actually haven;t read the book, and that you are taking your stance on the basis of other people's opinions about it.  I don't believe that is the best way to approach this, given that race and class are such hot-button issues in the United States.  I think you really need to read it for yourself and see that complants such as the one you report from Lozada are not credible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rjensen: (ec} at the head of my statement means "edit conflict", which means we were both posting at the same time, which means I had not yet read you two comments. It's going to be difficult to carry on a discussion if you don't give me adequate time to respond after you post something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as the Foeign Affairs review goes, yes the reviewer is correct, blacks and Native Americans suffered more, but Isenberg's book is not about blacks and Native Americans, so she can hardly be faulted for writing the book on the subject she wanted to concentrate on, rather than the book that the 'reviewer thought she should write.Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, Carlos Lozada, who wrote the WaPo article you cited is, as far as I can tell, not an historian, but a book reviewer by trade. Jefferson Cowie, who wrote the Foreign Affairs review, is an historian, and apparently a well-respected one, but even well-respected historians can miss the forest for the trees at times.  What I'm waiting for is not miscellaneous cherry-picked reviews, but something that says -- as you are saying in your edit summarieis -- that historians in general have rejected Isenberg's work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the Lozada review is, overall, very positive and supportive of Isenberg's thesis. Yes, he takes her to task for (in his view) minimizing racial issues (about which I believe he's wrong - again, wanting her to write the book he wants rather than subject she focused on), but other than that it's pretty glowing. The same is true of the review in The New York Times.{{parabr}}I'm not an historian, I work in show business, but I know damn well that almost any review can have a blurb taken from it which will make a film or a show look like the best thing since sliced bread.  The same is true about cherry-picking negative comments, which is what you did with the WaPo review.  I haven't read the Foreign Affairs review, so I don't know if you did it there as well, but, in any case, what we need from you is citations from reliable sources that support your edits, and so far, those have not been forthcoming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the reviewers all say she has a provocative book with lots of research. And they point out how she downplays race --this is an article on WHITE trash where White = race.  The problems I have with this article is that editors have misread Isenberg--for example posting the lead photograph of people cured of  hookworm--this is not an article about hookworm.  Hookworm created poverty no question about that but the victims were not called white trash by Isenberg or anyone else.  So why is the picture there.  The long quote from Stowe is likewise a misreading. Isenberg explicitly says Stow is talking about poor people and now it pops up in an article on white trash. --Stowe does talk about white trash but not in that quote.  So it's a matter of misreading Isenberg--I think she's to blame by not being clear that the designation of "white trash" was not made by Stowe.  Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has a citation from Isenberg for the excerpt in question.  Where is your citation for that being a misreading of Stowe?    I know that you think it is a misreading, but nothing is going to go into the article without a specific citation supporting it.  \Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Violence
This section needs an overhaul. Seems at its current state it is suggesting there is a relation to genetics in white southerners and violence without offering any rebuttal. This seems similar to skull measuring and other racist rhetoric used against African Americans in the past. Should include a rebuttal if not removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1940:9550:29B6:7627:C3E3:6EE8 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where your picking up those inferences. It simply says that someone has a theory that there may be a a genetic disposition to violence in a certain ethnic sub-group, without any mention of pesudo-scientific methodologies such as you mention.  I think rather that some research should be done to determine if the theory is WP:FRINGE or not, and it should be removed if there is no consensus for it, or if the support for it is so minimal as deserve to be removed as a matter of WP:WEIGHT.  A rebuttal would also be fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Racial slur?
The lead section states that the term is "usually a racial slur", citing John Hartigan in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. However, I can't find where Hartigan says that it's usually a racial slur. While describing the terms "redneck", "hillbilly", and "white trash", he states right off that each term "demarcates an inside and an outside to mainstream white society" and that they offer insight into "intraracial dynamics" and "name-calling that whites engage in" (page 95). While he calls these terms "racial epithets", he's primarily describing them here as socio-economic signifiers among white people. He further states on pages 105–106:

"But the more fundamental point to be drawn from 'hillbilly', as well as 'redneck' and 'white trash', is that these stereotypes derive their enduring currency from the way they ratify a host of anxieties that white, urban Americans hold concerning the white underclass [...] only 'white trash' makes the racial stakes explicit [...] it marks white people who are rupturing decorums associated with whiteness [...] these are the whites who make the arbitariness of the 'color line' apparent by the way their predicaments undermine racial conventions. Hence it is with 'white trash' that the opportunities for deconstructing whiteness become most tangible."

First, this is obviously all pretty theoretical. However, notions of the arbitariness of the color line and deconstructing whiteness seem to have little to do with racial slurs as commonly understood, i.e. terms of abuse for members of another (usually disadvantaged) racial group. The article even states that The term achieved widespread popularity in the 1850s, and by 1855, it had passed into common usage by upper-class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century. Can anyone point to where any of the sources say that "white trash" is primarily a racial slur? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Much expanded page looks great.
The first two book I listed under popular culture are pre civil war and fit exactly into the narritive part of the article as examples. Suggets merge that material up into the body. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Whiskey tango" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whiskey tango. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Self-deprecating humor?
I can't verify any of these sources personally, but they all appear to be instances of people using the term self-referentially, not about such use of the term. If they are just instances of use, then the text is original research for making an interpretive claim not directly supported by published sources. If any of these works do make such a claim, what makes them reliable? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you cannot verify them, then you are in absolutely no position to know if the sources they do or do not support the information presented, and you are therefore not justified in tagging the information with "cn". Go do some research, find copies of the books in your public library, or order them second hand from somewhere, and come back with some actual evidence instead of your unsubstantiated inferences and suspicions.  If you re-add the CN, I will make this an issue at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too radical to question whether a handful of cheekily-titled cookbooks and a humorous self-help book are reliable for broad generalizations about sociological groups. Can you substantiate your claim that ? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are 4 sources plus common sense and common usage says the text is correct. The body of the article doscusses this in delth. Repeatedly inserting an incorrect OR tag is very disruptive. Please find something productive to do. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Almsot every ethic group co-opts the names that have been used against them, and uses them among themselves, or even to the outside world, in order to dilute their sting. Think of how African Americans use the "n-word" amongst themselves, knowing full well that if a non-black was to use it, it would be an insult.  The statement in the lede that poor white people sometimes use "white trash" in a humorous or defensive way to refer to themselves is similar, and is not in any way difficult to believe.  Any instance of it occurring is support for the statement that it occurs.Please stop edit warring to restore an inappropriate "OR" tag on a statement which has four supporting references.  Your edit summary to the effect that it doesn't matter how many sources are presented is wrong: as long as the sources are reliable, and they support the statement being made, each reference is additional proof that the statement is valid and not original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither "common sense" nor personal opinion about what's "difficult to believe" satisfy WP:V. That's exactly the kind of original research I was talking about. Even if everything said here is true, not having a reliable source that states it explicitly makes it OR and unduly weighted. I can find four occurrances of just about anything in published books. That doesn't mean it's encyclopedic information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like sources you don't have access to read, try the web accessable ones below. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This book keeps coming up in my searches. Not sure how to work it in. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A large part of the article is based on that book, (see "Isenberg (2016)" in the refs). It's a scholarly-but-popular book which covers many aspects of the subject very well.  It was my primary source when I expanded the article a while back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * New York Times right at the bottom Jimmy Carter quoting a congrassman supporter "“Andy has called me a poor white trash made good,” said Mr. Carter." Clearly a self depreciating joke.
 * "Sandra Bullock has played the game ... joking that her main rival Meryl Streep is “white trash.” Her ability to exude just the right amount of self-deprecating charm..."
 * "Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, and Ron “Tater Salad” White use the self- deprecating humor of us redneck white trash hillbilly crackers to engage us in a Rabelaisian carnivale in comedy clubs and on cable chan- nels across America." A 2002 book
 * "Listen to My Life as a White Trash Zombie Audiobook by Diana Rowland, narrated by Allison McLemore. ... first-person narration a humorous kick. McLemore excels at bringing Angel's self-deprecating and sarcastic comments to life."
 * "I’m proud of my hillbilly, white trash background. To me that keeps you humble; that keeps you good." Dolly Parton (point 13
 * Interesting column suggesting the term white trash is accepted but shouod not be ok
 * LA Times in 1995 quotes a guy who calls himself "white trash from Kentucky" as a joke
 * Out of these sources, only Homo Redneckus looks like anything approaching an academic work. Users' personal opinions about Jimmy Carter's humor don't satisfy WP:V either. What Sandra Bullock said about Meryl Streep one time is an interesting anecdote, but that's clearly not self-deprecation, even according to the source. Even if all these examples were valid, combining them into a narrative about "working-class whites" (Jimmy Carter is "working class"?) would be the definition of improper synthesis. —09:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry the 4 book titles cited in the article are plenty of evidence. You don't need to read the books to see that. Obviously no amount of cites or quotes will satisfy you. We don't need academic works to prove the obvious when we have books that use the term in the title, a President,a famous singer, a famous actress etc. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says these are all "working-class whites", or that their use of the term is meant humorously, or that this is a trend? I can find you a bunch of celebrities who use any given catchphrase; that doesn't make it a valid sociological phenomenon. Or rather it might, but that would be original research, i.e. an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, just like your own statement . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Carter came from a working class background as a peanut farmer for example. I've got one of his books right across the room. The RS quoted say they are using the term in a self depricating way, that is who. There are hundreds of thousands of pages on Wikipedia that have zero sources, yet here you are insisting on gold standard academic discussion sources for a statement that is pretty obviously correct. Go donsomething useful instead. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The RS quoted say they are using the term in a self depricating way – the only source I can see that (A) meets WP:SOURCES criteria and (B) directly says any such thing is . Pretty obviously correct is not the standard used on Wikipedia, but even so, why aren't there more RSes that directly confirm that it's correct? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more, and the ones I provided are from the 1970's up to the last several years so this is hardly new or date sensitive. I found these by searching "white trash self deprecating". Rejecting the New York Times and the LATimes as non-RS now? I'm not clear exactly what you want changed except to add a tag. Please specify your proposed wording and provide sources to back it up. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I propose is to remove the sentence until we have a reliable source that directly refers to working-class whites, or any whites, as a group. Your NYT and LA times sources don't refer to any groups; they mention individuals using the term in passing. The LA Times piece is a column, not an edited news article, so fails WP:NEWSORG right off. (And why do we care what a random guy from Kentucky says?) The line from the NYT you quoted doesn't say Carter was joking; it's also the last line of the article – not the place for important information – and it was Andrew Young, not Carter, who referred to Carter as "poor white trash made good". A Google search for any combination of words will return lots of results. That doesn't mean (A) the sources mean what you think or (B) are useful in this context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 23:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Got it. All sources are trash. You also got the Carter quote wrong. Carter said You g said he was white trash. Pretty obviously a joke between friends in the same party, repeated in a way the Carter is making fun of himself in his famously folksy way. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's what the article says, once again in the very last line, i.e. with no further explanation: "Mr. Carter said ... as for Representative Young's purported remarks, it was just Mr. Young's 'way of expressing himself' ... 'Andy has called me a poor white trash made good,' said Mr. Carter." Is that a joke? Who knows? Who cares? Carter isn't calling himself white trash, and even if he were, it wouldn't prove anything about "working-class whites" as a group. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's what the article says, once again in the very last line, i.e. with no further explanation: "Mr. Carter said ... as for Representative Young's purported remarks, it was just Mr. Young's 'way of expressing himself' ... 'Andy has called me a poor white trash made good,' said Mr. Carter." Is that a joke? Who knows? Who cares? Carter isn't calling himself white trash, and even if he were, it wouldn't prove anything about "working-class whites" as a group. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of an NPR feature on the term: which includes the quote "These days, there are a lot of people who celebrate being white trash. There are white trash cookbooks, songs about being white trash. You can buy T-shirts and sweatshirts and hats. So does that make it OK?" Cheers, gnu 57 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Replace the current content:
 * The term is primarily used by urban and middle-class whites as a class signifier, but may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle.

with
 * While the term is primarily used by urban and middle-class whites as a class signifier and an epithet, some have reclaimed it for self-identification as an expression of self-empowerment and a celebration of the stereotyped culture and social-marginalization.

Citable sources for the modified part of the sentence (with supporting quotes): Feel free to revise the proposed text and shorten the quotes before incorporating into the article (assuming consensus for that). Abecedare (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some version of the above. One of the sources used in the article makes a similar point using Eminem and Roseanne Barr as examples (Hartigan 2003, p. 107) while also saying that the term is "primarily a distancing technique" before an identity, even among the lower classes (p. 105) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, primarily used by urban and middle-class whites … … some have reclaimed it for self-identification is ambiguous, since it implies urban and middle-class whites are using the term for self-identification.


 * Secondly, I largely agree with Sangdeboeuf's arguments above that present text is wholly OR. It is difficult to disagree that the book titles and other uses above are intended to be humourous - what I personally have a problem with is using a collection of book titles + 'celeb comments' and 'comedian comments' to justify that the people using the term are working class people, self-describing. Jimmy Carter, quoting someone else? Parton? whose origins were certainly Southern poor, but 60-ish years as a public figure with an image to protect has done nothing to shape her use of language? Barr? Who has made a living out of embodying a certain kind of blue-collar American? Analysing how/who/why humour is used is an inherently problematic project. A possible fix to both problems is to phrase passively ie focus on how the term is used, rather than making claims about who is using it. To me 'humourously' is both supported and self-evident, as probably is 'stereotyped culture'. Whether a readable, supportable phrasing can be shaped out of that, I'm not sure. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns with the source added recently by as the first ref in the lead. While the author does discuss the origin of the term white trash on page 38, the specific passage cited from page 43, "...us rednecks are naming ourselves. Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, and Ron 'Tater Salad' White use the self-deprecating humor of us redneck white trash hillbilly crackers...", doesn't explicitly say that the term itself is an instrument of self-deprecation, and these famous comedians, along with country-music star Toby Keith discussed further down the page, are not exactly "working class". Phrases like "redneck white trash hillbilly crackers" that the author uses frequently throughout the book (not to mention the title, Homo Redneckus) are obviously tongue-in-cheek, and are partly used from a first-person perspective, making this somewhere between a primary and secondary source for any "joking" usage. Genuine secondary sources that critically examine others' usage, rather than sources that use the term self-referentially, are preferred. I think there's a lot of material that the book could be cited for, just not the specific statement about "self-referential" use by working-class whites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced the questionable text with: While the term is mostly used pejoritavely by urban and middle-class whites as a class signifier, some white entertainers self-identify as "white trash" and celebrate the stereotypes and social marginalization of lower-class whiteness. Hopefully this addresses the sourcing issue as well as 's concerns about who some refers to. Feel free to modify or to suggest additional improvements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Florence Owens Thompson photo
Why the Florence Owens Thompson photo? She was Cherokee and not even white (except in the sense of not being black!). Has anyone ever described that beautiful, iconic image as being a photo of 'white trash'? Or can we simply assume that any poor non-black Southerner is inherently 'white trash'? What exactly is the image meant to convey, because it is very jarring on an article about a derogatory term. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Redneck wigger" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Redneck wigger. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Racist?
There's a bit of back and forthing over whether the term is racist or not. removed it, restored it. BMK, personally I don't think "anyone can be a racist" is really correct or relevant--we're talking about a system here. But that's kind of beside the point: the source that our article points at here, The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia p. 1452-3, does place it at least partially in a context of race, but doesn't call it "racist", not as far as I can see. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for triggering a discussion, but isn't it pretty much cut and dried? The repeated addition of "racist" is in itself, painfully racist. Minorities lack the political power to be racist towards whites (even dirt poor/disabled/sick/whatever ones), who exist within a system designed to enforce and protect their white privilege. Wikipedia is better than this. 2A02:C7F:8F1A:F700:9498:A1A9:8AF5:CDFD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If sources don't call it racist then we have no reason to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , maybe it is for you, but not necessarily for old White people like me or BMK. I agree that you are right, but in this particular collaborative project we need to be a. collaborative (so please don't yell at BMK) and b. base information on secondary sources (which is why I cited that book). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have appreciated a ping to this discussion as an involved editor. I only found it because I came to this page to start a discussion myself! Anyway, moving on, the source provided says "racist and classist slur" verbatim on page 1453 - to help you find it, access the link you posted and search "racist and classist" (with quotes) into the search bar. If the source describes it that way, so must Wikipedia, unless a better source is found that says it's not.
 * Also, I want to point out that the source doesn't have to be making the argument that "minorities" can be racist to white people. To elaborate on what I mean, let me make a comparison: the term "sissy" is rightfully described as a sexist term, even though it's a term used against men and boys. It's not saying that women and girls have political power to be sexist against men. In fact, it's a term mainly used by men and boys against men and boys. Similarly, this article points out that "white trash" is a term used mainly by whites against whites. --Equivamp - talk 22:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am following the source. The IP has not offered a source in opposition.  And while it is true that "white trash" is probably most often used by whites about other whites, the article clearly points out (with sourced information) that poor blacks in the south also use/used it to refer to poor whites. The IP is attem{ing to oversimplify what is a complex sociological situation.I've heard the argument that the IP puts forward, that minorities cannot be racist, but I find it utterly uncompelling and completely illogical, and I do not believe it is something that is accepted by the mainstream of sociologists.{{pb}Finally, the sentence when I added it used "racial" and not "racist", which I believe follows the source more precisely, so I am restoring it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How can it get more precise than verbatim? --Equivamp - talk 00:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * VG point, rstoring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to question the formatting of the first sentence of the article, which provides quotes around the suffixed nouns "racist" and "classist". I believe that the rationale for this is that a direct, verbatim quote is being used. I'm not aware that we do this kind of formatting to other articles within the same context and subject matter. I would provide, , and  as evidence. Could editors please confirm why the extremely short sourced sentence in this case must be referenced verbatim with quotation marks, as opposed to other similar articles which accurately summarize the content of a source without quotes. Why the disparity? 67.167.74.196 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that quotation marks are unnecessary as the information can/was previously presented in Wikipedia's voice based on the RS. --Equivamp - talk 23:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to boldly remove the quotation marks (again). Based on the conversation above, I don't believe achieved the consensus here for their inclusion when making the good faith edit adding them in. If BMK could make the case, please. Also removing the unsourced qualifying statement in parentheses added very recently regarding race theory beliefs.67.167.74.196 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to restore them. It is a direct quote, and I dont; need a consensus to put quotes around a direct quote.  Please do not touch them again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy requires that direct quotes from sources need to be quoted. If not, it can be considered a copyright violation.  At this time we do not have another source which says that "white trash" is a "racist and classist" slur, so those words must be quoted.  Please do not make edits which correct copyright violations. Copyright violation can -- and should -- be corrected on sight. This discussion cannot provide a consensus to allow a copyright violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I'm certainly mystified as to why you chose not to use the copyright violation explanation within the edit summary when you first reverted my edit. Instead you pointed to consensus (that you don't need?) on this page, which was not apparent - hence my good faith questioning of your edit and your reasoning for it. I would also point out that the phrase without quotation marks withstood multiple edits, some by yourself, that apparently 'violated copyright' over a period of time. Please be clear about your reasons for reversion in the first place. Otherwise one is led to think that you're going shopping for a wikipedia rule in order for your edit to triumph. And if that were to be the case, that would be a rather uncollaborative approach to editing. I'm still not convinced that removing the quotation mark constitutes a copyright violation, especially when the source is referenced. And of course, if we don't quote directly, there would be no need for quotation marks at all. But I'll drop the stick for now and allow other editors to weigh in if they so wish. 67.167.74.196 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that one's thoughts about an edit (or a book, or a movie, or a meal) needs to be utterly and totally complete in every respect at the very outset, and cannot evolve over time after further consideration? Removing the quote marks creates a copyright violation, and that's the case if i realized it a day or so ago or today, so your argument is fallacious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to think that someone so hyper-vigilant and cautious as to spot copyright violations 'on site' that merit threats of trips 'to the noticeboards' for violators, would be able to see one. In the very first sentence. 67.167.74.196 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You might think so, but I'm only human. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And so am I. So I'm not understanding the toxic acidity from you from the get go. But I see I'm apparently not the only one, so I guess I won't take it personally. 67.167.74.196 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why the first sentence claims the term is "racist and classist" from a single source of a single sociologist The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia p. 1452-3. Are there other sources that make claim that this is a racist and classist slur? Is one source enough to have the first sentence of the article agree with the quoted statement from the source? It seems disinginuous to have this quote placed here in this manner, even in quotations the placement of it implies that it is actually racist anc classist. Even if it may be racist and classist, surely we can get more than 1 source to elaborate on that claim, and if we can't get more than 1, why does this quotation have to be in the first sentence of the article? The placement and defense of the label "racist and classist" seem disinginuous to me. Thanks, Throwaway772319 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is this account's one and only edit, leading me to believe that it is indeed a "throwaway" account created by someone with a regular account who does not want to be identified. Given this, I feel no compunction to respond to a question from an obvious sockpuppet.If you really want to discuss this, post with your regular account and we can do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am using the label throwaway because I don't want to use account identifiers that normally have my first and last name included, which is what I usually do on websites like e.g. reddit. Nobody else in this thread is stating what I am stating so I dont understand why you think I am someone else here, but I am not. This is literally the only time I have ever used one of these forums, otherwise I would have directly edited the page for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash), otherwise I have to post here, because the page is semi protected. I saw the page for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash), wanted to make a change, saw you had to make a wikipedia account to do so, and even so for semi protected pages, you can't make changes on those pages with new accounts, so you can only discuss them. This is my first time understanding any of this.


 * User Beyond My Ken, it seems like you are more than willing to write a verbose statement to my comment, but only in regard to me being a user with no past history on this cite. If you are going to go through the effort to write a comment of that length, why not even read what I wrote? Even if I was a first time user, are these talk pages only reserved for those who frequently edit wikipedia pages? Then what is even the point of these talk pages? New users can't interact with semi protected pages without being arrogantly brushed off because they are new users? At least read my comment before you brush someone off for something as shallow as being a new user. Throwaway772319 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't discuss with socks. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that I am a "sock"?

Really what I am getting at here is that new users are completely ignored when it comes to controversial pages. I get that for the page itself, but isn't that the entire point for these talk pages???

Believe me, if I were just a sock and I had another account, I would gladly get on that other account just so that you could stop whining about "sock" and actually bother to read the point I made. It seems more like you are just a low effort moderator who acts more out of their own self indulgence for some sort of power which they lack outside of wikipedia, at least that is what I am getting at when I google your username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway772319 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This entry is a polemic
I am sympathetic to the editor’s intentions, but neither Dorothy Allison’s nor the editor’s anger constitute etymological facts. Dubious (but reassuring) political & psychological motivations behind the use of various related slurs, as well as their relative propensity among various classes and geographical regions, are also presented as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimesvevo (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything in this article is supported by a citation from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks in the lead
User:Beyond My Ken seems convinced that the phrase "racist and classist slur" requires quotation marks around it in the lead section, despite objections from multiple editors (see page history). However, reasoning for it has been inconsistent over time: earlier reverts were explained that, because the exact same four words are found in the (first, now) source used, it would be a copyright violation not to include scare quotes, and later reasoning was because the phrase was decided on by consensus after talk page discussion. As to the earlier reasoning, I find it ridiculous to think that would constitute a copyvio, but leaving it the way it is brings up WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV issues. Attributing the quote to the first source in the lead sentence would bring up WP:DUE issues, and isn't really needed especially with multiple sources now. The statement isn't being made as a description of a point of view; it's stated as a point of fact in Wikipedia's voice based on sources and doesn't need quotations. As for the later reasoning, there doesn't seem to be any policy-based reasoning that wording affirmed by prior discussions requires unmoveable quoation marks/scare quotes; if there is I have definitely never encountered it before. Attempts to go against the previous consensus can follow the normal WP:BRD cycle, and it's possible for consensus to change in the future this way, not so with commanding hidden messages proscribing any change. The quotation marks should be removed. --Equivamp - talk 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The epression is a direct quote, and direct quotes should always be quoted, regardless of their length. Also, a number of other editors have attempted to remove "racist and classist slur" when it was not quoted, and therefore appeared in Wikipedia's voice.  Both of these reason justify the quotation marks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If new users are edit warring counter to consensus, they can be reverted, no quoation marks necessary (or desired). Because the statement is being made in Wikipedia's voice (and in the context of how it's presented, it is), it is not being used as a direct quote - if Wikipedia were to describe an event as happening in the house, no quotations marks would be needed there either, even if the source(s) cited also use the specific phrasing if "in the house". --Equivamp - talk 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, editors have tried to change or qualify it even with the quotation marks there, so they're not the magical shield you're treating them as. --Equivamp - talk 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing "magic" about them, it's just better to have them then not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is simply no way to respond to that. Do you have any policy-based reasoning? Because multiple editors clearly think otherwise, which creates a consensus even if there's one editor EW-ing to keep them. --Equivamp - talk 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please get a WP:consensus here to change the article's status quo before you do so again. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not the WP:STATUSQUO. The status quo is the version without quotation marks. You first added the quotation marks on August 15, which were removed within two days by another editor. A discussion started on the matter (see the relevant section above) which was in favor of removing them, and you responded in a BITE-y, threatening way to stifle discussion and edit warred to get your way. And then you have continued to do so with any editor who removed the senseless quotation marks still, in February. The quotation marks haven't been the status quo at any point, and the fact that you keep changing the supposed reason the marks must stay, still without any basis in policy or at least reality, is very telling. --Equivamp - talk 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is a basis in policy: WP:CONSENSUS: Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals... As I said above, get need to get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, you are the editor acting against the consensus of multiple editors, as I have stated. --Equivamp - talk 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have said that. It is not, however, the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You single-handedly edit warring and stifling discussion on the matter, then insisting that the version of the article only you have shown support for is the status quo does not change the fact that there is a consensus against the inclusion of quotation marks. --Equivamp - talk 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is that consensus? Point me to it please.  I see no such discussion on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you remember the status quo, considering you are the editor who added the quotation marks originally. You should also remember the consistent reverts from many editors over many months of your addition, because you were there to revert it back each time. And you should also remember the discussion above about it, which was in favor of removing them but more or less ended when you threatened and bullied a newbie editor. --Equivamp - talk 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the link or diff to a consensus discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Scroll up. --Equivamp - talk 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it's your contention that a discussion between me, you, an IP who hasn't edited since being flagged for disruptive editing in October, and an obvious sockpuppet constitutes a legitimate consensus discussion? Will, it's my contention that that previous discussion is clearly corrupt and, in fact, does not reach a consensus, because the only legitimate editors involved are you and me.And here we are again, you and me, and we still don't agree, so there is still no consensus. Of course, WP:Consensus can change, and that's what I'm looking for, some indication that a consensus exists right here and now, at this very moment, not six months ago, to remove the quotation marks from around a direct quote.  I'm not seeing it.Until you can show a consensus, I see no point in belaboring this discussion, so I won't be participating anymore.  I will be monitoring the discussion, though, so feel free to continue attempting to build a consensus.  If you get one -- a legitimate one that doesn't involve sockpuppets and drive-by IPs -- I'll certainly follow it. However, please do not remove the quotation marks without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Popping in to say that I agree with 's position here, and that it appears that you are in the minority on this issue, Beyond My Ken. Consensus means consensus, not "consensus of people who agree with me." Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An additional note for - as it's clear we disagree and there are substantial disagreements on this issue with other editors as well, I've asked for a 3rd opinion at WP:3O. Hopefully we can work this out. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need. I see now that there is a consensus for the removal of the quotation marks, so I have removed them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely have to laugh... --Equivamp - talk 23:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don;t know why. I said from the beginning that if there was a consensus I would follow it.  Until now, there wasn't one.  Get with the program, Equivamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "now" there's one, sure dude. --Equivamp - talk 00:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you have no concept of what a consensus is or how it's determined. Oh, well... dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Remaining issues to resolve - racist and quotes on term itself
,, other interested editors, two more issues to resolve, one on style and one on content. First of all, the term 'white trash', the subject of the article, is given in quotes in its first, bolded use. Why? Not sure if there's a style guideline coming into play there. Second of all, the first sentence refers to the term as a 'racist and classist slur'. While the body of the article has extensive discussion about the classism of the term, there is really no discussion of the term being racist. I don't have an opinion myself on whether the term is or isn't racist, but leads should reflect the body of the article. Unless a well-sourced section regarding the racism of the term 'white trash' is added to the article, I think we should remove 'racist' from the lead. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I put it in quotes to indicate that it's an expression. Another editor had put it in italics, claiming that this was the MoS-approved way of indicating words-as-word.  I have no problem with it just being bolded, with no itals or quotes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.The reference immediately after "racist and classist slur" is the source for (what was) a direct quote. It is where "racist" comes from.  If I recall correctly, the second ref supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , my concern is that the rest of the article does not contain any discussion of the term being racist. Obviously it's a race-related term, but 'racist' is more specific in nature. The lead should reflect the article, and making an important claim like "this term is racist" without anything to back it up in the article is confusing for readers and generally against our Wiki style. If a section in the body of the article were written or expanded to discuss the term 'white trash' as racist, from multiple reliable sources, than the lead would make sense as is. Otherwise, I think it should be changed. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that we have a reliable source which describes it as being racist. A better solution would be to add discussion about the racist aspects of the term -- which is actually touched on in the "Black popular culture" section, where it is described as being a riposte for the use of "nigger" -- rather then removing it from the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added some material in the body of the article as a beginning of a discussion there of "white trash" being a racist slur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , looks good, thanks for making those improvements. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still more to do, I'm waiting for access to two journal papers, which I hope will have more material to add. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IMPARTIAL, we shouldn't describe the term as "racist"/"classist" in Wikipedia's voice. Are white entertainers being "racist" when they jokingly call themselves white trash? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WORDSASWORDS is the relevant style guideline for the use of italics. For the rest, well, I've lost my interest in improving the lead section of an article which clearly belongs to someone else already. --Equivamp - talk 01:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:STEWARDSHIP. Still not with the program, EV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Very left-wing introduction
The entry is too socialist, defines the term almost entirely from a "class struggle" point of view with, of course, the poor being the good guys.

Also, from my experience, when most people use "white trash", they're not necessarily thinking of destitute people as much they're referring to people who use drugs, are skanky, won't work, and the like. I'm from Tampa, FL, and I've heard that term all my life. It's mainly used to shame whites seen as lacking class, misbehaving, etc.

Now, obviously, a lot of those people will happen to be poor or of lower economic class, but that's not really the point. The "class" aspect of it is more prominent with expressions like "trailer trash".

WikiJoe24 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal experiences aren't relevant. If you have information from reliable sources, however, it can be used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Beyond my Ken -- It's not just my experience. That's just the common understanding and use of the term, at least in this day and age. This view of "class disdain" from the respectable middle classes, that's just the interpretation (not to be confused with the more objective "observation") of ivory-tower academics and pundits.


 * By the way, I just checked that NPR source, and a lot of what I said (that it's whites differentiating themselves from other whites they deem culturally trashy) was mentioned there. Even mentioned Trump as "white trash icon." It's just that whoever wrote this Wiki entry omitted it and preferred to emphasize the class aspect instead.


 * WikiJoe24 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, "common understanding" is not relevant. Only information which comes from reliable sources can be sued in the article, or any article on Wikipedia.  Other information can be removed at will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

class struggle tends to be a socialist thing told through socialist lenses. many of these class based terms were used to disparage workers on strike during the 1800's. so of course it has a slant. 50.205.22.46 (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of trivia in the "in popular culture" section
I removed (diff) an inline list of pop culture references from the article. I did this because many of these references were trivial and there was already a significant amount of prose above the list explaining the impact of this term in popular culture. I was reverted, so I'm going to explain why I think each of these references do not merit inclusion: So looking through all of these, the only ones which aren't in prose but might merit mention are Po' White Trash and White Trash with Money. It would be kinda silly to have a list with two items, and the WP:BURDEN for inclusion of disputed material is on those seeking to include it. Therefore I am re-removing this section, but would not object to an inclusion of either of these in the prose section above, provided proper sourcing showing their cultural significance, with analysis to that effect, is provided. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , cited to what looks like a research paper about the play itself. The play does not have a Wikipedia article, but even if it did, I don't think it merits inclusion here. There isn't much evidence presented that this play was significant at the time or had a major impact on culture.
 * cited to itself. This is pure trivia.
 * cited to a post about the song (seems potentially reliable, so not disputing that). However this is also just a trivial reference.
 * this is already in the prose section above.
 * this has no reference. Given that this got platinum sales I could see an argument for inclusion in this article, if there are sources analyzing the media and connecting it to the usage of the slur.
 * unreferenced and pure trivia
 * unreferenced and pure trivia


 * As I mentioned in my edit comment, even if this material is trivial and ultimately better removed, it currently contains non-trivial sources that should be preserved as further reading, and I believe a number of the entries are also missing from White trash (disambiguation), so, where relevant, these should be copied to there prior to deletion here. However, I broadly agree with you that much of this material is undue and that the list format is also probably undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and carried all of that out now - about half of the material was preserved; the remainder relocated or trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)