Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Cantwell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Regarding this revert, I don't believe that the linking to the photo is OR / BLP violation. The photo has been widely reported on, for example, in The New York Times:

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday that the warrants were related to the “illegal use of gases, and injury by caustic agent or explosive.”

In interviews on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Cantwell said that if he were to face such charges, he believed they are connected to an episode he said was photographed by a journalist. [link to the image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHABrl7XcAA8AOU.jpg ] The image, he said, shows “that I’m pepper-spraying a guy straight in his face as he’s coming toward me.” “I thought that spraying that guy was the least damaging thing I could do,” he added. “In my left hand I had a flashlight. My other option, other than the pepper spray, was to break this guy’s teeth. O.K.? And I didn’t want to do that. I just wanted him to not hurt me.”

It's become one of the iconic images from the rally, and I believe a link is appropriate. I can add a citation to NYT if necessary. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is a violation of those two policies but of EL policies, by shoving some direct image link in. Template:External media should be used or if the image can be used under fair use criteria then it should be inserted like a normal image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate context of statement in section about 'Unite the Right Rally'

The section states: "...he disputed a characterization of the rally as nonviolent, and said: “I'm carrying a pistol, I go to the gym all the time, I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence.” Emphasis added.

That is not the correct context for that statement. Specifically the discussion was not about whether the rally was violent or nonviolent.

The original source video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I . At 3 minutes and 5 seconds he says this: "Whatever problems I may have with my fellow white people, they generally are not inclined to such behavior (violence)". The interviewer mentions Oklahoma City, Elliot Roger and Dylann Roof and then Cantwell says that she can remember their names and asks if she can remember the names of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. She replies (at 3:34) "We were asking if white people were capable of violence" to which he replies "Of course we're capable, I'm carrying a pistol, I go to the gym all the time, I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence."

I suggest that we can change the statement as follows to remove the incorrect context: "I'm carrying a pistol, I go to the gym all the time, I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence."

Thoughts?

DeadEyeSmile (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made this change.
DeadEyeSmile (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"White supremacist" label in lede

The content is wp:reliably sourced here: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-are-furious-with-trump-charlottesville-white-supremacist-vice-video-2017-8 It fits RS and BLP. I see no reason that should be removed as it is "politically motivated" nor unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prefix-NA: You have failed to discuss this on this talk page and have again, removed sourced content. Jim1138 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Crying Nazi

The "Crying Nazi" nickname seems to be sticking:

It appears that it's now Cantwell's claim to fame, as much as the Unite the Right rally. I plan to restore the mention of the nickname, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The label is sticking because somebody is sticking it. Cantwell does not use "The Crying Nazi" as a stage-name or alias. Many public figures have some unflattering nickname that other people apply to them, but normally those unflattering nicknames do not appear at the head of an encyclopaedia entry. For example, you would not see "Richard Nixon, also known as Tricky Dick," or "Bill Clinton, also known as Slick Willy." Those names stuck to those men just as much as "The Crying Nazi" is being made to stick to Cantwell, but in those cases I think you recognize the inappropriateness of dignifying those nicknames, which in this case you fail to recognize. You can just forget about any pretense of objectivity when you have an entry beginning like that. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Chris Cantwell has been around for years and is not known as the crying nazi, this should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.170.255 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The moniker "Crying Nazi" was popularized in a number of WP:RS before being added here. See references above and below. A number of RS use the term "Crying Nazi" in the title. Some using that term in place of his name in the title. Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The "Crying Nazi" moniker actually makes this page look incredible biased, and reinforces patriarchal notions of masculinity, it's an insult, real men don't cry. Insulting nicknames of Bill Clinton are not listed immediately after his name. This is juvenile and looks petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.127.210 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"White supremacist" and "Crying Nazi" labels

These labels seem to be removed often with complaints about the reliability of the sources. The following are used or could be used to support these. Removal on the grounds of "unreliable sources" would not appear to be valid. The argument of "biased" or "not neutral" is covered in wp:Neutral point of view.

  • "White supremacist" sources
    • "Facebook Has Banned White Supremacist Christopher Cantwell". Associated Press via Time Magazine. August 16, 2017. Retrieved August 17, 2017.
    • Mark, Michelle (August 16, 2017). "The chilling worldview of a white supremacist who helped lead the Charlottesville rally shows why so many people are furious with Trump". Business Insider. Retrieved September 21, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • Simon, Darran; Flores, Rosa (August 24, 2017). "White supremacist Christopher Cantwell surrenders to police". CNN. Retrieved September 11, 2017.
    • Bonos, Lisa (August 17, 2017). "OkCupid kicks out white supremacist Chris Cantwell: 'There is no room for hate'". Washington Post. Retrieved August 19, 2017.

The problem is not are there reliable sources, but which ones? Jim1138 (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The "white supremacist" stuff is well sourced and no excuse for removing it. But the "crying nazi" is a bit weaker and given it's a BLP it's borderline. Volunteer Marek  02:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The "crying nazi" sources look solid, too. Yes, they make him seem foolish. But if the reliably sourced shoe fits... Scaleshombre (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, the "Crying Nazi" label is meant to smear, given his highly contentious political beliefs. It's nothing more than narration, it's rhetoric and it's absolutely against pretty much every WP on Weasel Words, BLP, etc. Society seems big on lowing standards whenever someone is from a disfavored group. Care to go over some of the "headlines" and various labels written by southern newspapers about Martin Luther King in the 1960's? Perfectly reliable sources, and what not... I don't like this guy or agree with his politics, but people who pervert standards for emotional reasons only belittle themselves. Wikipedia should be better than that. Count this as a strong vote against this petty "crying Nazi" nonsense, let his own words and actions speak for themselves. Cantor19 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Comparing Cantwell to Martin Luther King? "Crying Nazi" is used as the title including the headlines in the cites above. It appears to be a moniker Cantwell earned. Cantwell recorded and aired that video himself. People are likely to search Wikipedia specifically for that phrase. Two others with monikers are Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Kaczynski. It should stay. Jim1138 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You are working to try to make that an earned moniker. You are transparent. It's clear that your goal is to make this a meme. This is a petty smear campaign that reinforces patriarchal norms that liberals claim they want to deconstruct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.127.210 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Learn the English language. I did not "compare Cantwell to Martin Luther King". I made an analogy whereby mainstream media sources (that meet Wikipedia's standards for wp:rs) will smear disfavored political dissidents, which is precisely what's being done here with Cantwell and that moniker. To see and acknowledge this does not mean one has to agree with Cantwell. It means that one has to agree with having standards and integrity, which seems to go out the window whenever anyone says "Nazi". Cantor19 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

—g

Primary sources tag

Reduced; preserving here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not too helpful. If one thinks an article "relies too much on primary sources" (which I don't think is a problem here anyway), then the solution is not simply to remove facts based on valid primary sources, but to add more material based on secondary sources. Mewulwe (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that Cantwell "endorsed Donald Trump for President" is trivial. It's not the information that's likely to be covered by secondary sources. In any case, if secondary sources have indeed covered that, I would not object to restoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, many things may be unlikely to be covered, or in fact not (yet) covered, by secondary sources, but that doesn't make them uninteresting. I don't agree that the endorsement is trivial and see nothing wrong in noting it, with its perfectly sufficient primary source. Mewulwe (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless Trump responded to his endorsement and/or secondary sources covered it, I don't think it should be in the article. Actually, juxtaposed against his other comments about Trump, it does seem fitting for the article. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There might be an article under this text somewhere, but it's smothered by the amount of primary source original research. Please do not remove the tag until the primary sources are minimized if not completely expunged, especially considering their subject matter. Do not use primary sources to make synthetic claims about living people. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits concerning references

I have reverted a bunch of edits made mostly by Scaleshombre because they messed up the references: a lot of references got duplicated as a result of those edits, making it really hard to make subsequent edits. There were two substantive changes made in the process of the edits that might deserve further discussion:

  • Adding that Cantwell is a "white supremacist" -- I have reinstated this characterization into sentence 2, where it belongs, rather than putting it at the beginning of sentence 1.
  • Claiming that Cantwell did not support the non-aggression principle and justifying its removal based on that: Cantwell did support the NAP in the past (as is clear from his podcast with Woods). I have rephrased the sentence to note the tension between his past endorsement of the NAP and his endorsement of violence. Vipul (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
What you refer to as NAP (Non-Agression Principle") is somewhat less ambiguously called the NIOFP (Non-Initiation of Force Principle). The key word is "initiation", meaning the first use of force or violence. In the general case, there is not any necessary "tension" between NIOFP and defensive violence. Did Cantwell advocate the actual initiation of force? As opposed to defensive force?

Sorry about messing up the references. But we really need to discuss the lede. I have no problem with stating his town, but is that really the first thing that belongs in the lede? It's not discussed in the body of the article, and it's hardly the detail that makes him most notable. He's a white supremacist -- that's his key claim to notoriety. And we don't have to say he's "been called" or "been identified" as such by the media; that's what the citations are for.Scaleshombre (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You label Cantwell as, "He's a white supremacist -- that's his key claim to notoriety". Instead, I've found that the first significant reference to Cantwell as a "white supremacist" occurred August 16, 2017, and that by a website labelled "Business Insider", whose reliability is far from clear. Cantwell apparently quickly picked up that "key claim", huh? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Major mistake by calling Cantwell "White Supremacist" without carefully considering distinction between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist".

See the article https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/nationalist-supremacist.php Many journalists (leftwing; and others) want to use "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" interchangeably. This article explains why that's not proper. Probably most of what is referred to as "Reliable Sources", at least those which use "white supremacist" in reference to Cantwell, ignore this distinction, and are really just using it as a way to slur him and others. From the article: "While many “white nationalists” are also “white supremacists” because they believe white people are inherently superior to other races, the terms are really not interchangeable. As Merriam-Webster explains, “white nationalist is defined as ‘one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation,’ while white supremacist is ‘a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.’” WP should not fall back on the excuse that some media sources, heretofor found to be "reliable sources", have decided to use sloppy standards to slur Cantwell, and presumably others as well. If Cantwell actually calls himself a "white supremacist", that justifies this label. If he does not, it's necessary to address this critical distinction and recognize that some media has been sloppy about this terminology. Do those "RS's" which label Cantwell as a "white supremacist" actually justify that label based on some statements Cantwell has made which clearly put him into the "white supremacist" camp? Or, do they merely decide, explicitly or implicitly, that since Cantwell calls himself a "white nationalist", their own policies declare that "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are interchangeable? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I decided to find when Cantwell was first labelled a "white Supremacist". I did a Google Trends search for 'cantwell white supremacist', results: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=cantwell%20white%20supremacist I suppose I wasn't surprised to discover that this showed that there were essentially no results until the week beginning August 13, 2017. But, upon looking at the history of this WP article, I found that it was begun August 17: And, when created by editor Vipul, the title was "Christopher Cantwell, White Supremacist". It is beginning to look like Vipul simply decided to call Christopher Cantwell a "white supremacist", rather than "white nationalist". Vipul seemingly has succeeded. Echo chamber? Some now defend calling Christopher Cantwell a "white supremacist" based on what are called "reliable sources" doing that. One major problem is that these sources probably, themselves, check WP: If the WP headline insists on calling Christopher Cantwell a "white supremacist", then by golly, that must be correct, right? So they use that term, confident that WP has properly vetted that label. Then, other WP editors notice that usage, and gleefully declare it must be correct. Therefore, I suggest that the more unbiased editors at WP first attempt to justify the label "white supremacist" based on media sources which appeared prior to the week of August 13, 2017. Do those references claim Cantwell is a "white supremacist"? If not, why should we believe editor Vipul, who decided one day to call Cantwell that name? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I did a Google-search for '"christopher cantwell" nationalist' prior to August 1, 2017. So far, after checking a few pages of search results, I have found only one cite that called him a "white nationalist" prior to that date: https://culteducation.com/group/1173-white-supremacists.html , dated July 17, 2017. I would say that the burden is on editors who want to call him a "supremacist" or a "nationalist" to provide evidence that this label is properly applied. And since this WP article itself seems to have been the first (?) to apply the label "white supremacist", WP and its editors have a special responsibility to not allow the "echo-chamber" effect to circularly-justify this. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've found what appears to be an early reference to Christopher Cantwell as being a "white supremacist", dated August 16, 2017: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-are-furious-with-trump-charlottesville-white-supremacist-vice-video-2017-8 Which, of course, was only one day prior to the appearance of this WP article. Hmmmm. First, I have to ask: Is "Business Insider" a "Reliable Source" by Wikipedia standards? Is it justified to label Cantwell a "white supremacist" simply because only a single source called him that on the previous day's edition? If Cantwell had publicly claimed that he was such, that would certainly justify the label, but I've seen no indication of that. A look at the WP article for "Business Insider" shows very little that could confirm that it is a "reliable source", especially one sufficiently reliable to justify what looks like a potentially libelous label like "white supremacist" to be applied. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm calling a WP:BLP violation on this page. The history clearly shows that there was no significant reference to Cantwell as a "white supremacist" prior to August 16, 2017. This article, with its libelous heading, was created solely in response to an article written by Michelle Mark, amplified by a website Business Insider, with no claim to WP:RS status. The appearance of subsequent references has to be viewed in the context of WP being part of the media echo-chamber: Having apparently been called a "white supremacist" by WP, other media were inclined to chime in and adopt this libelous label. WP:BLP clearly says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I would immediately do that, except that someone has 'protected' the article. Obviously, a reference to anyone as a "white supremacist" is at the very least "contentious", especially if he hasn't applied the label to himself. And, at the time this article was initiated, a day after the appearance of the Business Insider article, there clearly was only one media organization making that characterization. Business Insider cannot be labelled a "reliable source" (RS); there is no consensus for that. I will post a complaint at the appropriate location shortly. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:TLDR. There is no BLP issue here, the use of "white supremacist" is well cited to proper reliable sources. If you disagree with how they describe this individual, you should take that up with them. Or, please offer your own independent reliable sources that describe him differently. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Or take the case to Cantwell for him to do something make himself famous for something other than being a white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2018

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

The result of the move request was: move the article back to Christopher Cantwell, its title until an undiscussed move in January, per the discussion below. There is no consensus evident in this discussion for the proposed title, but also not a clear consensus in favor of the current title. Dekimasuよ! 03:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist) → Christopher Cantwell (white nationalist) – There are sources that identify him as both a white supremacist and a white nationalist, and it is appropriate to include that in the body of the article, but he only personally identifies as the latter. Choosing to have one label in the article title that he does not identify with over one that he does, when both work equally well for disambiguation purposes, seems a step too far. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is a tie, though. "White nationalist" is slightly euphemistic, and is not quite as well supported by sources. It's not always a euphemism, but often, and it appears to be the case here. We're not here to help him with his many self-inflicted PR problems. The disambiguation should reflect, in simple language, why he has an article. Cantwell is no longer noteworthy for his political positions (if he ever was), but rather for his violence, criminal history, and antisemitism. "White supremacist" is a tiny bit more expansive in covering all of this. The trend since Charlottesville has been for sources to use more direct language, such as this. If this trend changes, we can reevaluate, but otherwise this seems fine the way it is. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But for another person of the same name having an article, the title of this article would simply be "Christopher Cantwell". The only purpose of the disambiguation parenthetical is so that readers can identify him from the filmmaker of the same name, and "(white nationalist)" does that job just as well as "(white supremacist)", so in that sense it is a tie, and his personal identification should serve as the tiebreaker. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A tie implies the options are otherwise equal, but that isn't the case. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and therefor we do not prioritize self-identification in this way. We would never identify him as Christopher Cantwell (Libertarian), because that would be euphemistic and promotional. We are not here to help him define himself to other people, we are here to reflect how reliable sources define him. If you want a tie-breaker, consider "white supremacist" as splitting the difference between "white nationalist" and "crying Nazi". The "tie" paradigm just invites false balance. Grayfell (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • When I do a Google News search for "Christopher Cantwell" and "white nationalist" I get 931 results results. When I search "Christopher Cantwell" and "white supremacist" I get 797 results. It seems unclear that reliable sources are more on one side of this than the other, so per MOS:IDENTITY "If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Rreagan007 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Google hit counts are not reliable, as I hope you already know, because they do not exclude unreliable sources, and also include comment sections, repeated wire stories, and other problems. Hits also ignore weight and time-span. These numbers mean little.
Within this article among more recent reliable sources, I see a slight preference for "Supremacist". As for the MOS, what, exactly, is the "discrepancy"? Sources call him both because he is both. His political position is not unambiguously his 'identity' to the point that it excludes other terms for a closely-overlapping concept. A disambiguation of "(pastor)" would be fine. A disambiguation of "(Methodist)" would be a red flag. Do you see the difference? We are describing him because of the reason he is noteworthy, not because of some intrinsic quality, regardless of whether or not he has that quality. This is why I say that self identification matters, but how much it matters depends on a lot of things. This is one of those things. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
To editor Grayfell: - The difference in your example seems to be that (pastor) is an occupation, but (Methodist) is an affiliation, and that's the red flag. Much like we don't use (Democrat), but instead (politician), despite the affiliation used probably in more sources. So, in this case, what word would we use for both this topic AND a hypothetical person that had the exact same details, but an opposing affiliation? I am leaning toward (activist). -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, fair point about occupations. I don't accept "activist" though. I've seen that option come up elsewhere, and I especially dislike it here (for example, CNN got in hot water for calling Richard B. Spencer a "white rights activist", and retracted to call him a "white supremacist", instead.[1] Obviously not directly applicable here, but still...) At a glance, Christopher Cantwell (filmmaker) has tweeted in support of local comic book shops, OCD awareness, and lots of other causes. Does that make him an activist? I think it's as valid a form of activism as whining on Gab and picking fights with antifa. "Activist" is extremely vague, and kind of WP:PEACOCKish, so I don't think it's neutral. If we have a term which describes the "activity", we should use that, instead. In this case, he is an activist for white supremacy, violence, and antisemitism. "Activist" is accurate, but grossly imprecise, and I don't think it's going to be all that helpful for someone trying to figure out which person is which. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, on its face, (politician) is also imprecise, as it could mean almost any level of government involvement. Also, even if the filmmaker does some activism, that isn't what his primary occupation is and isn't what is he most well-known for. We can certainly keep the hatnote in place if there is any doubt. CNN walking back on the use of activist doesn't mean we should. And like I said, its important we be NPOV and choose a term which we would use for people on opposite ends of the same spectrum. I would have no qualms about using (activist) for someone who advocates for racial equality, and so we also shouldn't have qualms for someone who advocates the opposite, no matter how distasteful. Its only an article name, and the details of his activism will be laid out in the lead sentence. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't quite agree with you, but we can set that aside because that wasn't really the main point I was trying to make. Activist is much, much less clearly defined than politician. More important, it's also less well-defined than "filmmaker". Both Cantwells could, generously, be described as activists, and both could be described as filmmakers. Imagine a hypothetical newsblog article which mentions this Cantwell's Youtube video in passing. Would someone who's trying to understand the reference know which article to click? Likewise, is another someone researching the other Cantwell's comic-book writing career going to make the right guess the first time? "Activist" isn't even a hint in the right direction. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We can't eliminate confusion, only mitigate it, and avoiding confusion should not override core policies like WP:NPOV. Most people nowadays use keyword search engines that specialize in assessing context and dropping people at the right place. The articles will still have hatnotes, and that's probably the best we can do to help the rare occasion that someone lands on the wrong page. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Choosing a vague euphemism is the opposite of NPOV. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support only as a better alternative, but prefer Move to Christopher Cantwell (activist) - This person's occupation seems to be broadly speaking an activist on several fronts (white nationalism, mens rights, libertarianism, etc.), so I oppose singling out only one of them as it feels like a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. (activist) gives us his occupation while avoiding any affiliation, and would be fully appropriate for a hypothetical person who was as active, but held opposing views. There is almost no chance of confusion with the filmmaker using this. -- Netoholic @ 01:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Move back to Christopher Cantwell to revert undiscussed move of January, as this person is the WP:Primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation (see pageviews). This will also make moot the issue of what disambiguation to use. Station1 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Honestly, this sounds correct also. No one has mentioned that the filmmaker stub seems to have been created in concert with this undiscussed move, apparently just to legitimize it. In fact, the filmmaker article might be better as duo article since most sources treat Christopher Cantwell and Christopher C. Rogers a creative pair. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

oppose moving to (white nationalist). As the proposer indicates, the subject would much prefer to have the more promotional whitewashed version but the wiki should not be used as a vehicle in that attempt for self promotion and hiding what he is actually most known for and why he is famous in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the disambiguation parenthetical should not be used to push what is arguably a subjective label attached to someone against their own self-identification. Secondly, I completely disagree that "white nationalist" is in any way a whitewashing. Both the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are used pejoratively, which is actually a good argument not to use either in the title, though as the subject identifies with one of them, it's not quite as bad to use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slanderous edits

Some users keep adding "also known as the crying nazi". If I edited Shaun King to add "also known as Talcum X", my edits would be reverted for vandalism.

This double standard and bias makes Wikipedia seem like a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.62.219.78 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not slanderous to report what independent reliable sources state about this individual, as the passage at issue here is well cited. If you or this individual do not like how they are described in independent reliable sources, you may take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
How is this “well-cited”?! The first source (SPLC) does not even include a single mention of “the crying nazi”. Other sources, which are left-wing tabloids, only mention it in the title. This is exactly the same situation as Elizabeth Warren, also known as Pocahontas, Hillary Clinton, also known as Crooked Hillary, John Podesta aka John Pedosta, etc. The bias is obvious 204.48.94.137 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC and NyTimes are biased sources. This is equivalent to quoting Breitbart to say that Hillary Clinton is also known as “Crooked Hillary” (which is true, she is known as such by her detractors but this does not belong in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article). 129.97.124.27 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to challenge the reliability of a source, you are free to do so at WP:RSN, but I doubt very much you will obtain consensus that the NYT is "biased". No source is free of bias, but the information at issue is in several sources. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You are free to offer your own independent reliable sources that state this individual is a model citizen if they exist. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not he is a model citizen has no relevance here. You are slanderinng this individual on a very public page that is supposed to be objective. You are using wikipedia to push a political agenda and this makes the website lose any credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.62.219.78 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Contact the sources and ask them to remove those statements and they will be removed from this article. Jim1138 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the SPLC source re:crying with The 'Crying Nazi' from Charlottesville admits he is working with the feds Thanks for the heads-up. Jim1138 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing Prmary Sources Tag

Czar (talk · contribs) put the tag up in January. Most of the article is currently based on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are mainly used to back up the subject's own statements. The ratio of secondary-to-primary sources seems right to me. Does anyone object to my removing the tag? Scaleshombre (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling the Charlottesville PD

I have removed the short bit about Cantrell's idiotic phone call to the Charlottesville PD, as it's a context-free bit sourced only to a watchdog group and which has attracted no attention outside of that by reliable sources. It's not only undue weight, it doesn't even seem to serve any educational, biographical, or even narrative purpose, nor is it even clear what the CPD dispatcher's response signified. --Calton | Talk 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Cantwell/Archive_1&oldid=1084065295"