Talk:Dog whistle (politics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog whistle (politics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

It is requested that an image or photograph of Dog whistle (politics) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article has been mentioned in case law.
The citation is in: Erlam & Others v Rahman & Another, [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB) (High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Election Court 2015-04-23) Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey: "The wise folk of the Oxford English Dictionary fight shy of defining this term but as good a definition as any may be found in Wikipedia:". Link.

NPOV

Background:

Much like the case with recovered memories, child molestation, and sexual assault, there exists a small minority that say that unless there is hard evidence (there usually isn't, and unless the accused confesses you have the word of the accuser against the word of the accused) all accusations of dog whistling are false.

There is a somewhat larger minority who say that all accusations of dog whistling are true. And an even larger group (but still a tiny minority) who appear to reject any accusations of dog whistling against their favorite politicians and celebrities but accept accusations of dog whistling against people they don't like. So we get the perverse result of innocent people being hounded out of their jobs, and guilty people getting away with it because people have cried wolf one time too many.

NPOV calls for having the article cover both the always innocent and always guilty views, but only as the fringe views they are.

So how does this play out in this article? In the examples. A NPOV viewpoint will simply look and see if prominent sources call something a dog whistle. I purposely specified "prominent" as opposed to "reliable" because no source is reliable on whether a particular statement is a dog whistle. It's always an opinion and we always report it as such.

On the other hand, someone who is pushing one of the above fringe views will look at an example and, depending on whether it supports their POV, leave it in or take it out without regard to what prominent sources call it. Sometimes this takes the form of deciding that some published opinions are obviously right while others are obviously wrong.

Again, NPOV calls for having the article cover both the always innocent and always guilty views, but only as the fringe views they are, and in general to inform the reader that both true accusations and false accusations exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that unless it can be proven a speaker is dog whistling then the accuser is promulgating something we normally call a conspiracy theory. 143.170.82.63 (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There are circumstances when the accusations of dog whistling fit into a broader pattern of behavior and rethoric, such as the case with Trump. There are many cases in which someone like Joe Biden has been accused of dog whistling, and every single time, the accusation is so out there that serious people won't even grace them with their attention. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Neutral POV doesn't actually demand both of these be covered. in equal amounts. a neutral POV wouldn't actually cover things in such a way as described here.

a neutral POV would, according to wikipedia' NPoV standards page, demand that we take an objective look at the evidence behind all this, and when you search through it, the evidence is generally put out by "left" or "liberal" sources, and *is generally regarded as true by a significant portion of people who recognize patterns of speech*. not everyone picks up on patterns of speech quickly, especially when they're intentionally looking for reasons to not pick up on a pattern or discredit a patterm as being unjustified.

all im really saying here is that, from my perspective and *from the perspective of academic researchers*, dog whistling is very much a *factual* and *verifiable* thing that has already happened extensively in the past, that like many other patterns of behavior are highly nuanced and subject to change as our understanding and awareness of them grows. a neutral POV would actually take all of this into account. we don't need to pigeonhole people into "they're cooks overthinking things" is what a neutral POV ("fringe views","crying wolf one too many time") would actually read as.

neutral POV certainly wouldn't consider these as mere published opinions being on the fringes of public opinion.

2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a neutral POV would reflect this view 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this short comment posted after my other comment above. requesting this comment deleted/archived 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 17 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kunikmaddox, SkylerChiabai (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BenDUpolcom, Delacruzjameson02, AStudentSomewhere.

— Assignment last updated by Nikkig1221 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]