Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Yes he is a white supremacist

I first thought he isn't because he distantiates himself from being one in an interview from CNN. But because Wikipedia users always change it back to White Supremacist based on liberal sources I 'm convinced and this is totally according to WP and objective and not an opinion for sure. Thanks for informing me Wikipedia. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, great use of the word "distantiates". Rockypedia (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: be careful. We will be knee deep in another RfC on neologisms if we start encouraging that kind of thing. Edaham (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And "demonetization" below (does it have something to do with monetary policy?). Perhaps there is something in the drinking water. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He literally said Asians are superior to whites. Doesn't that prove that he isn't a white supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.58.229 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017‎

No, it really, really doesn't. 'White supremacy' doesn't mean what he or you seem to think it means, and he is absolutely not a reliable source for this definition. The "Asian supremacy" thing has only a flimsy influence on his practical positions, making it an obvious deflection. He isn't advocating whites voluntarily give up their rights and land to become politically inferior to Asian people. He is, however, advocating that whites work to take political power and social influence from all other races (in ways that would necessarily require violence). Further, Taylor isn't an impartial source for this terminology regardless, which makes his preferred euphemisms irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so anyone who thinks that a race of people has interests as a group and should protect their borders and other rights is a supremacist? So basically 95% of the planet [and basically everyone who is not White] would be a supremacist, by this logic?24.79.130.133 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. If you would like to learn about white supremacy, Wikipedia has an article on it, and I'm sure many of the sources at that article could be informative. This talk page, however, is not the place to discuss the general topic, only to discuss improving the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is NOT a white supremacist! He has stated numerous times that he has no desire to be in a dominate position over any race. Jared has stated numerous times that Asians have shown higher scores on IQ tests just has he has stated whites core higher than blacks. And he uses documented tests to gain his conclusion. White supremacists do not acknowledge any race intellectually superior than its own! Jared Taylor is a segregationist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTyson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We've already been over this countless times, including this very talk page section. See this article's talk page archives for multiple additional explanations of why his self-description is both irrelevant and incorrect. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because you believe whites are more intelligent than other races and should be left alone doesn't mean you want whites to dominate other races. Weird how people conflate the two. 68.106.54.68 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Want to be left alone"? By getting others to move elsewhere? Doug Weller talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How is Jordan Peterson a white supremacist? Can anyone reason on wikipedia without blindly reading left-wing sources? White supremacists assert that white people are morally superior, and often biologically superior (using pseudo-science), compared to non-whites. Jared Taylor NEVER says ANYTHING like this. He simply wants America to be white because thats how it started off. Hitler was a white supremacist. Alfred Rosenberg was a white supremacist. David Duke is a white supremacist (as it has been quoted: "White people don't need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals."). HOWEVER, Jared Taylor IS A WHITE NATIONALIST. Can anybody offer me a quote from him that proves his perception that whites are morally and/or biologically superior to other non-white groups? No. Because he is a white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018‎

Wait, Jordan Peterson? Was that just a typo, or was it a Jungian slip? We've already been over this. Taylor is unreliable and non-neutral. Reliable, independent sources describe his beliefs as white supremacist. Citing direct quotes to support controversial ideologies would be original research. Neither Taylor, nor Duke, nor Peterson, nor anonymous editors, are reliable sources for the definition of white supremacy. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay Grayfell, i'm going to tell you something that may anger you. But using biased media articles as a means to label someone a white supremacist is less objective than using rationality. The most rational steps to go through in this case would be: 1. Describe white supremacy, and 2. Evaluate Jared Taylor's rhetoric to see if it is congruent with the agreed-upon definition for white supremacy. In this case, guess what, you don't need to rely on Jared's self-serving definitions. The burden of proof is on you to determine whether he is a white supremacist, and you have not actually determined whether he is or not. You only found some left-wing articles that called him a 'supremacist' to further their own agenda to demonize anybody on the right-wing side of politics. The sources include: New York Times (a left wing newspaper), Washington Post (a left wing newspaper), Michael Newton (an author who specializes in fiction and has absolutely no credentials in sociology or any other relevant discipline; http://michaelnewton.homestead.com/bio.html), Elizabeth Bryant Morgenstern (a professor in sociology who seems obsessed with giving conference presentations on the Holocaust, definitely no bias there; http://wh.agh.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Elizabeth_Bryant_CV.pdf). Clean your room and change it to white nationalist, bucko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh no! Someone was wrong about Wikipedia in defense of a racist! They used the word "rationality"! This apparently makes me angry for some reason! GRRRR!

So according to you:

• Newton isn't a sociologist, so therefore isn't reliable.
• Morgenstern is a sociologist, but gives presentations on the Holocaust, so isn't reliable.
• Some newspapers aren't reliable because they are "left wing".

So is The Japan Times too leftist? Newsweek? International Business Times? Is The Daily Caller too leftist?

You still haven't answered me. Did you mean to type Jordan Peterson instead of Jared Taylor, or were you trying to make some sort of point? Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice straw man arguments. Yes, I meant to say Jared Taylor.

• Newton was extremely qualified and spoke within his field. He never purported to make claims about things he wasn't educated on.
• The problem with these articles is that they don't explain why they label Jared Taylor a supremacist. They are media articles, not studies or peer-reviewed documents.

Granted, all it is is semantics, but I believe you're using the wrong classification.

All you're doing is appealing to popularity by using an inaccurate term to demonize a person. Its like calling abortion 'murder' on its wikipedia page. This would be contextually inaccurate and motivated by political bias. You should evaluate the essence of what the word is trying to describe, and see if the word fits the essence.

I believe in this case, with Jared Taylor, the word does not accurately describe what he says or what his actions are.

Furthermore, here are some sources that call Taylor a white nationalist, if you want to play that game: Breitbart, ABC News, The Guardian, Standard, BBC, CNet, Talking Points Memo, Alabama Media,Think Progress, New York Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2018‎

This article already explains that Taylor rejects the label of white supremacist, and that's plenty. Your belief that Taylor is not a supremacist is no more definitive than my belief that he is. The way to resolve this would be with sources. Those sources I've seen describe him as one, or the other, or both, but none credibly refute either label. This includes the ones above, or at least, those that are reliable. As per previous discussions, "supremacist" is accurate and less euphemistic than "nationalist" even if both are supported. Any new sources must be reliable, and they must be directly about Taylor. If they discuss the difference between "nationalist" and "supremacist", I'm interested in reviewing them. If they just call him one instead of the other, it proves absolutely nothing, because the terms closely overlap.

Wikipedia does not expect all sources to justify every claim they make, as this is an impossible standard that no source could meet. Instead of debating personal preferences based on disputed definitions, we accept that reliable source know what they're talking about. Taylor's views on race are no more reliable than Philip Morris's PR is a reliable source for lung cancer. He's not usable or reliable at all except for his own opinion in limited cases, so why would he be considered reliable for the definition of sociological term? For this reason, I am not interested in trying to interpret Taylor's views on race to decide if he truly meets the definition of supremacist. My opinion is far from the only one that matters, also, I'm merely the one willing to humor you on this talk page. If you somehow convinced me, that would still not be consensus. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

>"This article already explains that Taylor rejects the label of white supremacist, and that's plenty."

No, it isn’t, especially when the label is false and aggrandizing his ‘immorality’, if you will.

>"As per previous discussions, "supremacist" is accurate and less euphemistic than "nationalist""

Here is the definition of white supremacist, as per Wikipedia: “White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races.”

Jared Taylor never states that white people are superior in many ways. Jared Taylor never states that white people should dominate other races. Whether he believes this or not is factually and deductively unknown, and assuming that he does would be fallacious, seeing as you’re supposed to support claims written on wikipedia with research or evidence (and not write personal assumptions or judgements about a person).

>"If they just call him one instead of the other, it proves absolutely nothing, because the terms closely overlap."

Don’t be so ridiculous. The term ‘white supremacist’ on the wikipedia page only uses sources that assert he is a white supremacist! You can’t say its O.K. to use sources that call him a ‘white supremacist’, but not O.K. to use (a greater number of) sources that call him a ‘white nationalist.’ That’s just hypocrisy, and seems to manifest your personal views on the subject.

>"He's not usable or reliable at all except for his own opinion in limited cases, so why would he be considered reliable for the definition of sociological term? For this reason, I am not interested in trying to interpret Taylor's views on race to decide if he truly meets the definition of supremacist."

Whether or not Taylor’s views are reliable is completely irrelevant towards whether or not you can classify his beliefs. It doesn’t take that much time to realize that he never said anything about the supremacy of the white race, but rather spoke a lot about the need for a whiter nation.

Here is a link: Columbia Journalism Review

In it, the writer says: “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.

Also: Pop Collab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say, not what we determine to be true. If independent reliable sources said Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. In the present case, independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist, so Wikipedia says he is a white supremacist.

If you disagree with the sources, feel free to contact them and try to convince them of your position. When those sources begin to say that he is a cheese sandwich, white communalist, segregationist, Asian supremacist, etc. then that is what Wikipedia will say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Not one single shred of evidence has been brought forth to link Jared Taylor with white supremacy. I would recommend for this reason, wikipedia implement some kind policy change. That is, it can't be enough just to cite a so called "reputable" source and ask their off-hand opinion about a subject that they themselves picked up from the mainstream media, which itself is highly biased and not very reputable.

If we were to implement wikipedia's policy rigidly and across the board, reputable sources would be allowed to get cited even if they make false claims. Surely this cannot be the proper way to go about things.

Until someone can provide substantive evidence to back up the "white supremacist" label, it needs to be promptly removed. KevinGrem (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The term and wording are well-sourced (in the lead, no less), so I'm not sure what you objection is. We won't be introducing weasel-wording, and consensus is clear that the white supremacist label applies. --Laser brain (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's ok for wikipedia to present false information, as long as the person who presents the information is deemed a reputable source? Oh this should be fun : ) KevinGrem (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And also, even if it were the case that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, it doesn't mean that it ought to be made his primary identity. Before he published American Renaissance, he was a computer programmer. It would be easy to find independent, reliable sources to back up that claim. So why not present him as a computer programmer, who, on the side, has been described as a white supremacist? KevinGrem (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And also, even if it were the case that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, it doesn't mean that it ought to be made his primary identity. Before he published American Renaissance, he was a computer programmer. The article is about what he is notable for. Taylor is not notable computer programmer, he is however a notable white supremacist. — Strongjam (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is an author with 2 degrees. American Renaissance does not publish white supremacist ideas. It speaks on white issues and advocates for white racial consciousness. Taylor has even stated that whites are not superior to east asians. What white supremacist would ever make a statement like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

American Rennaisance's raison d'être is the promotion of white supremacy. (SPLC, W. Post). As for "Taylor has even stated that whites are not superior to east asians...", cited sources have noted that white supremacists have a bit of an asian fixation. (Ny Times) So while you think it may be magnamanius for the likes of Taylor to express his <3 for "east asians", that kinda neglects the hate and denigration that supremacist heap upon Jews and African-Americans. TheValeyard (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The liberal media and the Establishment get to set the narrative and decide what is "real" and who is called what. Jared Taylor is being labeled a White supremacist because "he wanted to remove political power and social influence from non-Whites in ways that would necessarily require violence". CITATION, PLEASE?! There isn't even a mainstream media source to back this up! Jared Taylor has explicitly stated that he does not support forced removal of non-Whites. So how could supporting stopping any ADDITIONAL immigration of non-Whites into America be construed as condoning genocide? Can someone please tell me if a person in Japan supports Japan staying 98% Japanese, is that person a "Japanese supremacist"? No one will try to answer that question because they don't have an answer and they know they don't. What will the liberal deep-state Establishment do when TOO MANY PEOPLE start demanding answers to that question? I do believe that Wikipedia's extreme liberal bias wishes to slander Jared Taylor and his reputation because they know whenever someone Google's someone, the first thing they come across is his Wikipedia article and they want him immediately dismissed as a "White supremacist". 184.53.33.218 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

He's rep is based on analysis of he's rhetoric and tone about others. Like above ..plus review Barbara Perry -Professor and Associate Dean Faculty of Social Science and Humanities (2009). Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 115–117. ISBN 978-0-275-99569-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help).--Moxy (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Then, according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, can somebody explain, if Taylor is a White supremacist, then why does Donald Trump's article not explicitly call him a racist? There are loads of reliable sources (per Wikipedia standards) that call Donald Trump a racist. Trump's article does say that some of his statements were described as or considered "racist" or racially insensitive by journalists, but the article never matter-of-factly, point-blankly states "Donald Trump is a racist". 184.53.33.218 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are seriously claiming that the quantity and quality of sources covering Donald Trump are similar to those covering Jared Taylor, why would we take your suggestions seriously? If you're not claiming that, what's your point? This talk page is for discussing how to improve this article, it is not the place to discuss how to improve Racial views of Donald Trump. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist removed from lede

[1] Seems like at least an incredibly bold edit. Where's the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. Personally, I agree with Grayfell (talk) that including both terms is redundant, and as "white nationalist" is, at best, not as specific as "white supremacist", and at worst, well-sourced as a euphemism for white supremacist anyway, then only the second term is necessary. Rockypedia (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It came about following discussion regarding Richard Spencer, where someone suggested adding "white nationalist" to water down the supremacist line, and it was noted that this article was doing that as well. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with just using 'white supremacist'. No need to pussy foot around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• No matter the lead wording ......pls do not delete sources that were the result of a RfC....pls move them and the clearly defined term to the body. We are not here to water down our coverage of reliable sources. Side note RfC here much broader then the one linked above.--Moxy (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously, I support the simpler language also. This ties into a deeper problem with Wikipedia's articles on white nationalism and white supremacy, which fail to properly indicate just how closely intertwined the two are. Sources often use the two interchangeably, so I suspect we are we reading more into the sources' word choices than the sources themselves are. That's a problem. We should not pretend Taylor's position is in some way sophisticated, or that it's more nuanced than it is. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I support this as well. I really don't see the point of using both. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would urge caution in conflating the terms "nationalist" and "supremacist" They are certainly labels that individuals and organizations self-apply, but they are also defined differently in modern scholarship on racial issues. White supremacism necessarily includes the concept of racial hierarchy and there is significant academic debate over whether that's a defining feature of nationalism. Supremacists often refer to themselves as nationalists to water down their image, but we should be sticking to what's written in reliable sources about him. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Laser brain entirely. It's unfortunate that the media get confused over these and at times take separatists who call themselves nationalists at their word, but we need to stick to what reliable sources say. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think "white supremacist" does stick to what reliable sources say. It's a subset of white nationalism, and as such, it's more specific to use that term alone. You wouldn't say "Curt Schilling is an athlete and a baseball player" even though there are reliable sources that refer to him as an athlete. Rockypedia (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that the "nationalist" label is usually used to water down white supremacy, but I think scholars generally draw a distinction here (example). While it's difficult to imagine someone being a white nationalist without also being a white supremacist, there are some white supremacists who don't endorse white nationalism, so it's a useful distinction. Nblund ^talk 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis, this might (rarely) apply, but I believe this is clearly not one of those cases. Rockypedia (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Really think those wishing to change the lead that was the result of a big RfC should hold another RfC. Not sure this small talk is more reflective of consensus then the latter talk.--Moxy (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This distinction does exist, but I think that by introducing this detail in the lede, we are subtly validating Taylor's unsupported and fringe claim that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a white supremacist. By presenting these two as different and equivalent we are implying that this distinction is more significant than it is as it applies to Taylor. Since virtually every white nationalist is a white supremacist, which of these terms better explains who he is, according to reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Then let's use both terms but not side by side.....like ..Jared Taylor is a white nationalist from.... He is the founder of the white supremacist magazine..... Both terms can easily be sourced....it's not our job to interpret what is wrong with the usage....but to simply regurgitate the sources as they appear.--Moxy (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this suggestion is actually more of a WP:OR violation than the current lead. We'd be cherry-picking one term to describe him and another to describe the magazine. The more descriptive, and more accurate term, should be used in each case. In each case, that term is "white supremacist", as "white nationalist" is the euphemism that modern white supremacists adopted in order to soften their image. That's well-supported and well-sourced, and in the end, that's what matters. Rockypedia (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In my vew cherry-picking would be using just one term when both are used by the media and academic sources in different contexts..... as described by this Washington Post article about Richard . Less is not always better when many see different meaning with the terms. This is not the page to educate people on the usage of the terms just to regurgitate and link the terms used. Link the water down term and explain how the term is watered down in that main term article. As metioned above may be best we get more involved here. --Moxy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rockypedia: "white nationalist" is a euphemism. I don't suppose it's the end of the world if we mention that term, but if so, it must be in addition to—not instead of—"white supremacist" which is the generic term according to an ample number of reliable sources. It's very important that we don't inadvertently sanitize articles by omitting "white supremacist". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and to Moxy's point - there's two reason not to use "white nationalist" in the lead. One, it's using the euphemism to further the goals of POV editors who have come here looking to soften the image of Taylor, whom they argue is not a white supremacist (a DOA assertion, as we have ample sources supporting that the fact that that's what he's notable for). Two, as in my earlier example, since white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism, we should use only the more specific term, per policy. As my example stated, we don't say "Bryce Harper is an athlete and baseball player and right fielder." We just say he's a right fielder. This article should follow the model of every other BLP. Rockypedia (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But as sourced above and at the RfC.... dictionaries defind theses terms separately....to quote Our definitions observe certain differences between these two words; 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.”. Are you sure your POV is mainstream considering we have 2 clearly defined terms used in 2 different manners. As long as both are used in the article I have noproblem...one in the lead both later .-Moxy (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Even thought the Washington Post article is about someone else, it does help explain the close overlap between the terms. Is it possible for someone to "espouse white supremacy" and not be a white supremacist? This logically doesn't follow, but the current wording implies that they are distinct. It doesn't explicitly say this, but it absolutely implies it. This contradiction invites confusion, and this confusion has been intentionally taken-advantage of by some white supremacists such as Taylor and Spencer. I think it's simply clearer to use "white supremacist", because details like this don't belong in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But again we are giving our readers less information. Nationals versus supremacist ..... best we link both (does not need to be in the lead).....as it not our job to pick the term we think is right....but to mention the terms used by the sources. Let the linked term define them. if people think the terms are completely the same then proposed merging the Articles don't just abandon one and make it an orphan. --Moxy (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to argue every valid point bought up by every single editor that's of a different viewpoint than your own. You're clearly in the minority here; there's numerous valid reasons to amend the lead and several editors agree that that's the way to go. I propose this discussion be closed and the change implemented. Rockypedia (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So far zero sources presented and a big rfc say other wise Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 4#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Taylor/Archive_4#RfC_labeling_in_lede. Again call a new rfc...--Moxy (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This action isn't contrary to the RfC finding, which was a disagreement on whether to retain "is a white nationalist & supremacist" vs. watering it down with "activist". TheValeyard (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As stated many times....I have no problem with moving the term and sources to body.....but do not support delete. So far all we have is some editors say the terms are interchangeable and watered down....yet sources clearly refute this say different usage. Consider what is the best way to inform our readers.....omission or inclusion of sources.--Moxy (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are, however, the only editor who has a problem with this change. The sources can stay and white nationalist is (and will be) mentioned in the body. This discussion is simply about whether it's misleading to include "white nationalist" in the lead. Everyone thinks it is, except you. It's been two weeks and I read this discussion as overwhelming consensus to make the change. It's been long enough, consensus is clearly against you, and for you to edit war over it at this point would be contrary to every Wikipedia policy that has anything to do with the subject. Rockypedia (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as blanking of the term and sources does not happen again....I don't have a problem. I have a problem when editors with zero sources blank content that is clearly sourced and academic in nature that provides research martial for our readers. We are not here to leave readers in the dark because our anonymous editors don't like the way sources use a term.--Moxy (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, that edit you linked to was mine, and I did it because the term was already in the body, and was well-sourced there as well, albeit with some different sources than were present in the lead, which as you know, aren't required anyway per WP:SUMMARY. In an overabundance of caution in light of how controversial this BLP is, I moved the sources this time, resulting in a plethora of sources for the term in the body as of this writing. It can probably be trimmed to the best 4 or 5 at some point, although maybe it's also better to just leave them all there. I'll stay out of that debate. Rockypedia (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

White nationalism needs to be put back in lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Put White nationalist back into the lede. I move this be re-opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.32.54 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion by SPA collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM

::::I do not think ithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Taylor&diff=next&oldid=825177842 should be changed because "White nationalist" more accurately describes his beliefs. He does not want to oppress any other races. He does not want to harm anyone. His views are highly intelligent, and none of you could beat him in a debate. I disagree that "supremacist" should be in there at all. I do not agree with or care about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. I think those "reliable sources" are biased and lying. He just argues for freedom of association. But that's my opinion. My argument towards this conversation is that it should not change because he is a nationalist, not supremacist. When he states that Blacks have a lower IQ on average than Whites, that is a statement of undeniable statistical fact. Facts aren't racist. White people are not responsible whatsoever for the failure of Blacks to succeed at the same rate, or any social problems of any minorities WHATSOEVER. 184.53.32.138 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC) A germane question I'd like to add to this convo is (without any POV), why does Wikipedia even HAVE an article for White nationalism if nobody can be labeled a White nationalist? From my POV, it more adequately describes his belief system. Is not the assertion that White nationalist is a "euphemism" for "White supremacist" an opinion and not a fact? No one of prominence (and I mean NO ONE) identifies as a "White supremacist". It isn't a real thing, IMO. Do the majority of editors wish to assert that a "White nationalist" is not a real thing? It is a real thing. White nationalists do exist, and I am one of them. So why is it that nobody can be identified as one on Wikipedia? Why not just delete the White nationalism article, if it is the opinion of the majority of editors that nobody can be labeled as such? 184.53.32.138 (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why Taylor and not...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is Jared Taylor called a "White supremacist" in the lede (which is objectively BS in my POV but that's neither here nor there) but not Dr. Kevin B. MacDonald or Revilo P. Oliver? Oliver, especially, was far more extreme in his rhetoric. A legit question that should definitely be answered!

Oliver is described as someone who became a "polemicist" for "White supremacy" but it does NOT point-blank, matter-of-factly state he WAS a White supremacist in his article! 184.53.32.188 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If you feel other subjects in other articles need to be described differently, please discuss those issues on those articles' talk pages.

The cite given in the very first sentence of this article gives several sources directly stating unequivocally that Taylor was a white supremacist: "Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic...", "Virginia white supremacist Jared Taylor...", "Jared Taylor, long one of the country's most prominent white supremacists..."). Incidentally, I'd be fascinated to read about people who become prominent polemicists for and publish magazines supporting ideas they do not themselves support. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And what if those "reliable sources" have a liberal bias and are lying? 184.53.32.188 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we just call them White nationalists? I've tried to ask many times why an article for White nationalism even EXISTS if NOBODY can any longer be labeled as such. I will ask again: Japan is 98% or so ethnically Japanese. If a Japanese person does not want Japan EVER to become less ethnically Japanese than that, then is he a Japanese supremacist? So you see how I can so easily prove the "White supremacist" label is stupid an unfair. We don't call feminist activists "feminazis". We call them feminists. And I too would call them feminists in an article that claims neutrality, despite the fact that I personally feel that feminists are totally, utterly, and completely full of you-know-what. White supremacist is a SLUR. Like "feminazi" or "SJW". NOBODY IDENTIFIES AS SUCH. NOBODY. Find me ONE person who is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article who does not eschew this term. Why not call people WHAT THEH ARE? White NATIONALISTS? I know that "nationalist" will never have the negative connotations that the slur "supremacist" has. And that's too bad for the liberal Wikipedia editors. It's not their job to make people they don't like look bad. And let's be honest, ALL of the people who push for the "supremacist" label don't like Taylor or Spencer. And I believe that personal feelings should be left the hell out of it. 184.53.32.188 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's too bad for the white supremacists that Wikipedia does and will reflect the mainstream consensus that this person is a white supremacist, regardless of what white supremacists prefer to call themselves. Have a good day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can see yourself in the white nationalism article, that it says: White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacy, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and other analysts. White nationalist groups espouse white separatism and white supremacy. and also White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations. Not that it really matters what Wikipedia says about the subject (OSE), but it's pretty clear frokm the quoted sources, that people who call themselves white nationalists generally get referred to as supremacists some of the time. You can console yourself with the fact that the term supremacist does indeed share five letters with the word feminist. Edaham (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

First you tell us the sources don't say "white supremacist". They clearly do.

Then other articles don't use the phrase. Then the sources are biased. Then they're lying. Then you don't think they used the right term. Then him being a white supremacist might turn people away from his white supremacism. I'm sure there are a few other reasons you haven't gotten to yet, I'm sure you can come up with several more.

Multiple independent reliable sources say Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. As a result, Wikipedia says Jared Taylor called is a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

184.53.32.54 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Why was Wikipedia content FOR YEARS referring to him as an American White nationalist? WHY CHANGE IT NOW when there were "reliable" sources that called him a "supremacist" back then? Is it Wikipedia policy where even if a "reliable source" has a clear liberal bias, it be presented as fact? I am not accusing Wikipedia of liable, but the biased sources they should reject clearly are. 184.53.32.54 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That the article used to say something is not a meaningful argument toward having it say that now.

You stating a source "has a clear liberal bias" does not establish that it does.

I have no idea what you are saying after your statement that you are not accusing Wikipedia of liable -- the sources "clearly are" what? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The sources clearly are biased with an extreme liberal bent, obviously? Why was it okay to call Taylor a White nationalist for years, even though years ago there were still sources that called him a "White supremacist" (with an extreme leftist slant, most obviously)but now it HAS to be "supremacist"? 184.53.32.54 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Furthermore, since I agree with virtually everything Mr. Taylor says, does that mean Wikipedia regards me as a White supremacist? More importantly, are there not sources that Wikipedia would regard as reliable and independent that call Donald Trump a White supremacist? So shouldn't Trump's article, therefore have to call him an American White supremacist? Where, and how, exactly, does Wikipedia draw the line? And isn't it curious that there is NO ONE labeled a Jewish supremacist on Wikipedia, including Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who literally said that all non-Jews weren't even human? This insane double standard that a 5 year old could point out shows that Wikipedia is entirely beholden to political correctness and hypocrisy. 184.53.32.54 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And now for an academic view... let's quote professor Abby L. Ferber "The only science deemed legitimate is that which supports their racist assumptions; all other science is dismissed as biased propaganda, the work of a liberal, jewish elite. White supremacists assure themselves they know the Truth when they see it." Abby L. Ferber (15 September 1999). White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 74–. ISBN 978-1-4616-4702-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |authormask=, and |laysummary= (help) Moxy (talk)

I kind of doubt you will ever find satisfaction here. You might do better elsewhere.Conservapedia doesn't have an article on Taylor, I'm not sure how Schlafly feels about Taylor, so I'm not sure if you'll be any happier there (it's probably 50/50). Rationalwiki says he's the intellectual godfather of the racist political far-right, so I don't think you'll be happy there either. Assuming Metapedia has an article on Taylor (I'm not interested in looking), I think it's likely to be something you'd feel comfortable with. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bibliography

This briefly came up at least once before, but should the 'Bibliography' section be limited to books published by reputable independent publishers? Taylor is the president of the New Century Foundation, which is listed as publisher of all of his books of the last twenty years. As far as I know, there is no specific guideline for this, but typically WP:SPS works are not included in such sections. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We should include books that are strongly related to his notability, or are clearly due the emphasis through independent, reliable sources. Other than that, I'm unaware of any general consensus for including entries in bibliographies. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to take care not to provide publicity for his self-published books. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Added: Actually, I don't really care whether they're self-published. If the a book itself isn't notable and isn't written by someone who has attained notability as a writer, it's doubtful that we should mention it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Taylor is not a "white supremacist." He is a "white advocate." Calling him the former is tendentious. FustelDeCoulanges (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not doneWe follow sources like CQ Press. CLICK HERE to see why..--Moxy (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopen the "white supremacist" label discussion?

Now that Rockypedia has been banned after being exposed as a sockpuppeteer, I think it might be worth it to see what the consensus is without him and, possibly, the other accounts he was using to agree with himself. NFLExpert49 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any of his socks editing this page. But check for yourself. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockypedia/Archive. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• @NFLExpert49: Please post new comments on the bottom of the page, per WP:BOTTOMPOST.

Reopening this based on this one issue seems like a poor use of everyone's time. Many experienced editors in good standing contributed to this. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This has been talked to death, and consensus here is very clear and not dependent upon the contributions of one user. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at the OP's edits, this is more about Rockypedia than Jared Taylor. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing has been offered to suggest there's any problems with current consensus. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Taylor&oldid=prev&diff=852251297 I was asked to clarify. If you follow the reference it goes to a Google books page, specifically one of the book's reference pages. One of the listed references appears to be the actual reference that should be used. However, if you try to follow that reference it leads to a dead page. In neither instance does the location the link ends up at meet the standard of a reference, so I removed it. It seems pretty straightforward to me but if reference pages and dead links are now okay for Wikipedia then by all means, keep the reversion, I've noticed an overall lowering of standards on the site in step with the increased politicisation of certain pages. Yb2 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

He may not reply....but would likely point you to Wikipedia:Link rot.--Moxy (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Taylor asserts

The article states "Taylor also asserts that there are racial differences in intelligence among the various ethno-racial groups across the world." Um... excuse me? TAYLOR ASSERTS that? He's the one who asserts that? This article seems to assert that he just pulled that assertion out of his backside because he can read IQ statistics and takes note of their blindingly obvious conclusions (the sophistic blabber and mental gymnastic explanations of liberal academics notwithstanding). The article also claims that he supports the White genocide conspiracy theory. He does point out the statistically projected demographic fact that all people are European descent are headed toward extinction, however, he does not personally use the term "White genocide". I do not believe this article is intentionally a smear, but many reasonable people may see it that way. I do heavily dispute the neutrality of this article, however. It does appear to have been written by people who do not care for him. 184.53.33.235 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

1. hes own words.
2. Just a play on words [2] quote""I agree that 'genocide' is too strong," wrote Jared Taylor, editor of the pseudo-academic journal, American Renaissance. "It sounds like people attacking us with machetes and pitchforks. I think simple 'dispossession' is better. Also white nationalism sounds pretty stern, I think white advocacy sounds less scary but says what we want to say."

--Moxy (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"White separatist" - description in first line

Taylor is on record as saying he advocates separate race-based polities for those who want to, including whites or blacks. So "white separatist" would probably be more accurate than "white supremacist". He may well be a secret white supremacist (as might any white person), but he's not on record as saying so. I've no interest in living in such a place, but it's anybody's right to do so if they want, and their stated views should be honestly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.209.29 (talk • contribs)

Need sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/jared-taylor-alt-right-clinton-trump

https://www.cnet.com/news/white-nationalist-jared-taylor-american-renaissance-sues-twitter-for-account-suspension/ https://www.wnyc.org/story/what-white-separatist-expects-trump-administration/

There are three reliable sources per Wikipedia policy calling Taylor a White seperatist. Anything but "White supremacist". For God's sake, that label needs to be retired. It is a totally unhelpful, insanely stupid term to describe the extremely valid concerns felt by tens of millions of people of European heritage all around the planet (and growing exponentially). It may not be what Jared would identify as. But literally anything could can think of would be more accurate than "supremacist" nonsense. 184.53.33.151 (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the Guardian does not actually use "White separatist". Also, nicely pushed POV on Talk: maybe "racially paranoid" would be a more accurate term. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• just more rebranding. -Moxy (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this repeatedly. (I'd provide links to the archived discussions, but it's most of the archive.) While it is always possible that new sources or insight will change the consensus, continuing to beat the same dead horse will not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

White Genocide Section: American Spelling Needed

Whilst and organisation need to be changed to while and organization, respectively. Don't care where the Suidlanders are from, the article is about an American. Also, shouldn't Genocide have a capital G? 71.226.227.121 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist (not to be confused with white supremacist). Pabloinhisprime (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia isn't interested in euphemisms, and this has already been discussed many, many times. See Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 4#RfC labeling in lede and the rest of the talk page's archives, for a start. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

change the term white Supremacist to white nationalist. Jared Taylor is not a "White Supremacist" he is a "White Nationalist". He does not preach white superiority only a white ethnostate. Lalayon (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done pls review the sources.--Moxy (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. "White Supremacy" is when someone is interested in dominating other races. Jared Taylor has NEVER expressed any such interest. Ever.

I have attempted many times to make a more fair and accurate description of the man, but people KEEP CHANGING MY EDITS. Stop reverting my edits when you don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong. I know for a fact Taylor is not a white supremacist, although he has been described as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That you claim to "know for a fact" anything is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Taylor is widely described as a white supremacist by reliable sources, and reliable sources are what we base Wikipedia articles upon. Your edits have been reverted because they are disruptive, and further disruption will likely lead to your being indefinitely blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable sources say, not what you "know". If such sources said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say Taylor is a cheese sandwich, without regard for what you or anyone else knows. Independent reliable sources say Taylor is a white supremacist, so Wikipedia says Taylor is a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Japanese-born American..."

Is it necessary to highlight where Taylor was born in the first sentence of the lead? It does not make much sense to me, but want to check in here before removing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

184.53.32 IP who has edit this page several times

See their contributions[3] - blocked once for pushing racism. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Lead

The debate over whether it's fair to call him a "white supremacist" based on media descriptions of him aside, why should that be the lead? Being a white supremacist doesn't make a person notable. Some nobody living in his parents' basement could be a white supremacist. What makes Taylor notable is he is an author and public speaker. That should be the first line: Jared Taylor is an American author and public speaker. NFLExpert49 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been explained several times, but to reiterate: He's not notable as an author who just happens to be a white supremacist. He is notable as a white supremacist author, and a white supremacist public speaker, and a white supremacist publisher, and a white supremacist pseudo-academic conference organizer, and white supremacist ideologue and so on. There are a million authors/public speakers/basement dwellers/etc. who are not notable enough for articles. He is notable for his extremist pseudo-scientific ideology, not for his day job. We use direct simple language for the first sentence to explain why he is notable. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's absolutely laughable. There are also people who aren't authors who have extremist pseudo-scientific ideology (and nothing he says is pseudo-scientific; your agenda is showing) who are not notable. His views don't make him notable. Nobody on the planet is notable because of his views alone. The fact that he is a well-known author is what makes him notable. This isn't even debatable; you're completely bastardizing wikipedia policy. Every other author's wikipedia page says they are an author in the lead. You could say he's a race relations author. You might even be able to justify calling him an American white supremacist author based on wikipedia loopholes. But to pretend that he is notable for merely being a white supremacist (according to "reliable sources") is insanity. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"nothing he says is pseudo-scientific; your agenda is showing". Best try to rebut the sources over making editor directed statements. .. Stephen E. Atkins (2011). Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-59884-351-4.. --Moxy (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What makes Stephen E. Atkins a "reliable secondary source?" What are his credentials for determining what is "pseudoscientific?"NFLExpert49 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "...where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

"ABC-CLIO, LLC is a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences for educational and public library settings. ABC-CLIO provides service to fifteen different online databases which contain over one million online textbooks.[2] The company consults academic leaders in the fields they cover in order to provide authority for their reference titles." - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Further, he was a tenured historian and librarian who published multiple reliable books on right-wing extremism during his career. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is similar to the distinction between an author who is also a vegan and a vegan author. The former writes whatever it is they write (novels, technical manuals, poetry) and is also a vegan. The latter writes about veganism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not saying he is notable because he has extremist pseudo-scientific views. We are not saying he is notable because he is an author who has extremist pseudo-scientific views. We are saying he is notable as an author on those extremist pseudo-scientific views. I kinda doubt anyone is waiting for a romance novel, book of childcare tips or manual for electronics repair from him.

As for whether or not his views are extremist and pseudo-scientific, the independent reliable sources cover this in abundant detail.

If you are still not satisfied, you are certainly welcome to open a request for comments. I strongly doubt you will like the result. The sources cited here are quite clear and are clearly reliable.

If you feel it is an inherently biased system, stacked against...etc., etc., I would like to suggest that you would be more likely to find policies more your speed at Conservapedia or (more likely) Metapedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

In the first sentence, it states that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, he is not, and also claims that he is not. He is a white advocate, very different from supremacist. I hope you the reader takes this into consideration, thank you. Tayyab2462 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed repeatedly, reliable sources call him a white supremacist, and a "white advocate" is a euphemism. Nblund ^talk 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

Change "White Supremacist" to "White Nationalist". Psychoticflora (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've got you covered. This should suffice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly0L4QHFjhs It's an interview from 2016. White Supremacists by definition believe the white race is superior in all ways. He actually considers those of the Asian race to be generally superior. If you need more just let me know. There are other interviews and articles, though it's generally the same as the one provided. The terms White Nationalist, or even Racist (though that's a little less accurate, it's still close enough), would be much better.

He is indeed Called a White Supremacist by many media sources, but that's generally just a tagline used to draw in views. Wikipedia is supposed to be less biased than media, so using the wrong terms is troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.237.90 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this repeatedly. (I'd provide links to the archived discussions, but it's most of the archive.) While it is always possible that new sources or insight will change the consensus, continuing to beat the same dead horse will not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My god. People are right about wikipedia aren't they? I mean, I've seen other conversations that were concerning, but understandably up for debate, so I held onto hope. In this case though, his position is clear, backed by countless interviews and the definition of "white supremacist" is clear. But like Every Single Talk topic I have read, the response is the same. Absolute, resolute denial, without discussion, and more importantly, without just cause. This should be a simple, obvious fix. I've posted a novel's worth of text in past about this type of subject. So, as my last response, and my last use of wikipedia, I wont waste any more effort trying to convince someone who, regardless of their position, shuts down any dissenting position. Wikipedia is no longer about facts. At least, when it comes to anything political. It all has to fit the liberal narrative, or it is bluntly denied, regardless of the evidence or sources provided. I'm a left leaning centrist and even I'm disgusted by wikipedia, or rather, the people who have authority here. Edit: Btw, you ASKED for a reliable source. Once provided, you then screech "we've been through this." effectively shutting the conversation down. That has been the case almost every time on every topic. Just sayin... So much for neutrality and sticking to facts aye? Feel free to delete this. I could care less. Just hoping there's a chance, however slim, that someone in the wiki community reads this, and realizes what liberal, biased garbage this community, primarily those in charge, has become.

PS, feel free to IP ban me as well. I've learned that's SOP now for anyone that speaks out about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.237.90 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• IP:107.77.237.90, IPs can't be banned, only blocked. Apparently reliable sources describe this dude as a white supremacist, so it behooves us to call him that--but how odd that all of a sudden calling a spade a spade is not acceptable to the right. Sad! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Extended content

Definition of "white supremacist" The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The Wikipedia article for "white supremacist" describes it as "the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them". This being the case is there evidence that Jared Taylor has ever said he wants to "be dominant over other races"? It would seem to me "white separatist" might be a more fitting label as he merely wants to live separately to them. For sure that is racist but not supremacist. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet Oddly enough Jared Taylor is listed on the Wikipedia article on White Separatism here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatism, which itself admits the difference between the two ideologies in the first paragraph - "white supremacists wish to dominate other races, but separatist don't wish to live with other races at all." So clearly one of the pages is incorrect and needs to change, I'd argue that should be the Jared Taylor one. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet  Not done - If you can explain how whites can "live separately to other races" without forcibly removing people of other races from places where they lawfully and peacefully reside, then you might have a point. But you don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Off topic chat Well firstly you haven't addressed the fact Jared Taylor is included on the White separatism Wiki page which clearly states - " White separatism is a form of white nationalism, but no longer easily equates to white supremacy". Wikipedia classifies him as an example of a White separatist already. So he can't be both someone who wants to live "separately" to other races AND "dominate over them", that's blatant cognitive dissonance. With regards to forming a white separatist nation many articles have been written on this topic, an excellent one I recommend would be by Greg Johnson of Counter Currents here - https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/the-slow-cleanse/. Many white nationalist figures also see other more realistic options of starting with areas/States/countries that are already high majority white and simply putting in measures to stop any further non-white immigration INTO those places. This leaves the non-whites there undisturbed and in no way "forcibly removed". I'd also finally add that measures akin to these have already been occurring over the last 70 years in many Western nations where the white percentage of the population has been shrinking, all due to government decisions on mass immigration, open borders etc. Only these have negative effects for whites so aren't deemed "racist". Jeffsmith01 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet Jeff, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your excuses for white supremacism, as you'v ebeen doing here, Talk:The Great Replacement conspiracy theory, and Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not promoting excuses for anything. I'm simply explaining how it makes zero sense to label Taylor a white supremacist. Honestly I was told Wikipedia was infested with rabid sJW leftists incapable of critical thought but I imagined they were simply exaggerating. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Off topic chat Extended content Contradiction with Greg_Johnson_(white_nationalist) Wiki page The page on Greg Johnson lists him as an "American white nationalist". Jared Taylor shares virtually all the same views as Greg Johnson, the Wiki article shows Johnson as saying "...it is not our [white nationalists'] preference to rule over other groups. Although if forced to live under multicultural systems, we are going to take our own side and try to make sure that our values reign supreme". This is what Jared Taylor believes in so how can one be a listed as a "white nationalist" whilst the other is a "white supremacist". This makes no sense. It simply appears to be a biased arbitrary decision to libel the good name of Jared Taylor and if that's the case exposes an inherent flaw of Wikipedia claiming to be "neutral". Jeffsmith01 (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet 184.53.33.127 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Perhaps best to understand the academic point of view on these interchangeable terms. ..CQ Researcher, (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity: Selections from CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)...--Moxy (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC) The terms clearly aren't interchangeable due to the fact Wikipedia has SEPARATE articles one each! Jeffsmith01 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic and/or topics associated with it. If reliable sources said that Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say that "Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich." Discussions of what a cheese sandwich is, who gets to decide what constitutes a cheese sandwich and whether or not other things are cheese sandwiches is irrelevant here. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Off topic chat Extended content simple question This is by no means a troll question. This is just a simple and straightforward question where in a fair and non-hypocritical world would merit a simple and straightforward answer. Jared Taylor supports White nations remaining majority White. And according to the “reliable sources” cited by Wikipedia, this makes him a White supremacist. Okay. Then by that logic, does that make a person who believes that Israel should be a majority Jewish nation forever a Jewish supremacist? I could ask that question 1,000 times and never get an acceptable answer. But any fair and logical person can see the hypocrisy. Japan is overwhelmingly Japanese, and most Japanese want it to stay that way. Does that mean they are Japanese supremacists? Do these questions for which there will be no answer provided (likely) mean that the reliable sources that Wikipedia thinks are “reliable” are not so reliable after all? Why is there no “Jewish supremacy” or “Japanese supremacy” article on Wikipedia? It’s a painfully simple question. That’s all I want to know. I move that Jared Taylor no longer be labeled a ‘White supremacist’. Unless the editors in favor of this defamation from lying and biased liberal sources can come up with an argument that satisfactorily answers my questions.184.53.33.127 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC) All we can do is regurgitate what the sources say. Find some sort of source saying that he loves everyone and will put it in. But until then all we do is State what is in the Real World At Large.--Moxy (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia says what reliable sources say about a subject. If you feel a source is not a reliable source, by Wikipedia's standards, please discuss the source. If you feel a source does not say what we are reporting it says, state that. If you disagree with what a reliable source says about a notable subject, start a blog, Tweet about it, discuss it at the compound. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic or topics that you feel are related. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Multiple sources confirming Jared Taylor as white nationalist The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved I was asked to provide reliable sources showing Jared Taylor to be a white nationalist and have found multiple backing this up from Vox.com https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/21/13592814/alt-right-donald-trump-jared-taylor, CNET.com https://www.cnet.com/news/white-nationalist-jared-taylor-american-renaissance-sues-twitter-for-account-suspension/, BBC.co.uk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43154727, theverge.com https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/15/17468854/jared-taylor-white-nationalist-alt-right-twitter-ban-lawsuit-ruling, dailydot.com https://www.dailydot.com/irl/jared-taylor-sue-twitter/, irehr.org https://www.irehr.org/2018/04/04/acting-racist-actor-andrew-williams-leads-group-hosting-white-nationalist-jared-taylor/ and abcnews.com https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/people-white-nationalist-jared-taylor-muslim-american-journalist/story?id=46211947. In terms of the sources citing him as a "white supremacist" on his page I'd note that the New York Times one simply opens with "Jared Taylor, long one of the country's most prominent white supremacists" without backing up the claim with any evidence of it's own so can be dismissed out of hand. The one from the Washington Post does similar "In American Renaissance, the influential white supremacist Jared Taylor argues:..." without showing how he IS a supremacist, blatant libel. In conclusion I have now given more sources than the original article has, will it be changed to white nationalist now? Jeffsmith01 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet Content in Wikipedia is worked out by the editing community through analysis of reliable sources and application of the policies and guidelines, via a consensus-driven process. You are relatively new to the discussion of this topic. Please review the archives of this page (accessible via the mustard colored box at the top of this page) particularly the RfC in Archive 4. There have also been discussions/RfCs about this at WP:BLPN and WT:NPOV (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_54). On something like this, showing up and tossing a couple of refs out, is not going to change a decision that was made through a great deal of discussion including multiple RfCs. That is not how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC) The BBC article in particular, they being a reliable source, is more recent than ANY of the other sources that currently exist stating him to be a white supremacist. Are you telling me the BBC are not competent or are lying? They label him a white nationalist in the first two words of the article, in the header! Other than presumed bias by various high level Wikipedia editors I can't for the life of me work out why this has not been changed Jeffsmith01 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet Nobody here asked you to find sources calling him something, so you either misinterpreted what was being told to you, or are being intentionally obtuse. He is both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. It's possible for him to be more than one thing. Ethno-nationalism is a sad, angry fantasy anyway, so trying to emphasize this difference is unpersuasive. None of these sources dispute that he is a white supremacist. In fact, they all support it even if they don't use that precise term. Further, this has already been discussed in tedious detail. Beating a dead horse is a demonstration that you're not acting in good faith. If that's the case, why wouldn't an admin just block you and save us all some time? Grayfell (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I'd note that the New York Times one simply opens with "Jared Taylor, long one of the country's most prominent white supremacists" without backing up the claim with any evidence of it's own so can be dismissed out of hand. That's not how sourcing works. The New York Times is a high-quality reliable source, so we trust them to have fully fact-checked and verified everything important in their news articles. The fact that the New York Times uses "white supremacist" as its descriptor for him is enough to serve as a source for us (for such an incendiary term, we would usually want multiple sources; but we do have those here.) Beyond that, though "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are not mutually-exclusive terms. Given that we have many sources identifying him as a white supremacist, you would need to find a source disputing those if you want it removed from the lead. ---Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Okay so just to get this straight because the New York Times source was included first (I'm presuming) I now need to get ANOTHER source specifically disputing that original source and the others? Does this mean if the BBC article, here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43154727, which in it's HEADER labels Taylor a "white nationalist" was included first then THAT would need to have a source disputing it? So on Wikipedia the FIRST source has priority, is that what you're saying? I'd also add the Elizabeth Bryant Morgenstern source says "Jared Taylor is the editor of the American Renaissance magazine, a publication that espouses the superiority of whites." This does not make him a white supremacist as a supremacist intends to DOMINATE other races, simply being the best ON AVERAGE is not supremacy unless you want to say black people of West African origin are "supremacist" at the 100m sprint. The Michael Newton source I can not access so can't interpret any possible context, does Newton provide reasons for labelling him a white supremacist in his book? Finally the New York Times and Washington Post sources have no more veracity than my BBC article, in fact mine is certainly stronger as it's from this year as opposed to 2016 and 2017 respectively, and the BBC is as verifiable a source as the NYT and WP. With regards to White nationalist" and "white supremacist" not being mutually exclusive, this is irrelevant, it's about finding sources that back up the argument of Taylor being a white supremacist and the ones provided don't do that. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet It's mostly about weight. We find that most of our highly reliable sources when describing Jared Taylor refer to him as a 'white supremacist'. Some refer to him by other terms - e.g. racist, bigoted, white nationalist etc. but the term we agreed upon previously was white supremacist. Did you read any of the previous RfCs (such as this one)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC) So are you effectively saying there is no possibility of changing this even though the most recent and relevant sources refer to him as a "white nationalist"? Literally none of the sources for calling him a "white supremacist" explain WHY they use that label, it's the definition of libel, does that not even slightly concern you? If he's clearly a white supremacist and notable for that then why does the 2018 BBC article refer to him in their header as a white nationalist? With regards to that archive discussion clearly Option C was the right choice. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet Literally none of the sources for calling him a "white supremacist" explain WHY they use that label, If a reliable source said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say, "Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich." Reliable sources do not need to explain, back up and support what they say. What a reliable source says is, by definition, verifiable. Otherwise, we'd have virtually nothing to say about anything (as few newspapers provide footnotes) and every discussion would devolve in to challenging whether the source's sources support their claims and whether the source's sources' sources support their claims, etc. Yes, the BBC article uses "white nationalist". It also calls far-right political activist Charles C. Johnson a "conservative activist". That's swell. Pick any incendiary figure from history and we can find sources that use broad, nearly meaningless labels for them. Was he "one of the major organizers of the Holocaust"? No, he was a "government official". it's the definition of libel, does that not even slightly concern you? Libel is not "an unsupported unfavorable claim". More to the point, however, is that Wikipedia is pointedly not saying that Taylor is a white supremacist. Wikipedia is saying that ABC-CLIO, McFarland, New York Times and Washington Post and their authors say he is a white supremacist. Without even getting into public figures and absence of malice, it is simply a factual matter that those sources say Taylor is a white supremacist. If labeling him a white supremacist were A) false and B) harmed his reputation, that would be NYT et al.'s problem, not Wikipedia's. Arguing that sources are "wrong" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, not what editors decide is true. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC) The label of "white nationalist" the BBC uses is not "meaningless", it tells you exactly what his ideology is which he confirms himself in this Wikipedia article. Surely having the sources match what the man himself says makes more sense? And again I have to stress, this article was released after the ones listed as sources, surely that has greater importance. I mean, how many articles/sources have to come out confirming he's a white nationalist before the Wiki article is changed? Is this set in stone for eternity? With regards to the New York Times they can hardly be deemed a verifiable/reliable source after they employed a known anti-white racist in Sarah Jeong, that choice alone shows bias AGAINST white people, they can not be used as an arbiter of whether or not Jared Taylor is a "white supremacist". Therefore if Wikipedia is choosing to use this source that shows bias on their part, or rather certain people who have a grudge against Jared Taylor/white nationalism, which sadly seems to be the case Jeffsmith01 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet We operate on what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Also, white nationalism and white supremacy are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone refers to Taylor as a nationalist doesn't mean he's not a supremacist. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and judging by your editing history so far I'd say you're here to push an agenda and you'll find little welcome on Wikipedia for agenda-pushers. You're headed for a fast topic ban, if not a plain indefinite block. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Seconded. @Jeffsmith01: I'm pretty sure everyone who has this page on their watchlist has heard your argument a half dozen times at this point, but it's just not persuasive. Multiple reliable sources describe Jared Taylor as a white supremacist, no reliable sources exist that seriously contest that designation. If you want to become a productive Wikipedia editor, you should accept that some hills aren't worth dying on and move on to a different issue. The path you're on probably leads to a block. Nblund talk 15:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Someone did refer me to an archived discussion on the decision to call Jared Taylor a "white supremacist" and it was rather enlightening, all contributors bar about 2 supported the definition. Now I can't read minds but that sort of overwhelming consensus kind of highlights a major bias issue with Wikipedia itself. I also imagine not one of them have ever read or watched any of his videos to hear what the man himself has to say, just dogpiling with shouts of "bigot, racist" etc. But yeah I know when I'm beat, you win guys :) Jeffsmith01 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC) sock puppet The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People Have Completely Misrepresented Wikipedia's Guidelines Over Here

original statement is blatantly unconcerned with specific article improvement. Please address specific text within the article. - thanks. Constable Edaham (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A certain group of posters have policed this talk page to ensure that despite the dozens upon dozens of protests over the lead asserting that Taylor is a "white supremacist" (a change which was originally enacted by a user who was banned for sockpuppetry, I might add), the lead doesn't change. They assert that the lead must stay as is because there are reliable secondary sources alleging the label, and there is consensus for the lead being what it is. Except Wikipedia's guidelines never say that reliable secondary sources are the be-all-end-all of how to ascertain fact. They also don't say that users must discount primary sources. They say to use them with "caution." Finally, and most importantly, the guidelines make it clear that users are allowed to use COMMON SENSE and CRITICAL THINKING when trying to ascertain the reliability and accuracy of a source on a certain subject. One editor here claims that if reliable sources said that Jared Taylor was a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would label him a cheese sandwich. Well, that's ridiculous, and a complete misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policy. If a supposedly reliable secondary source called Jared Taylor a cheese sandwich, we could dismiss the source as reliable on this particular subject, because logic and critical thinking demonstrate that the claim is factually false. We are not told to just blindly accept something just because it comes from a reliable secondary source. We are not told to just regurgitate reliable secondary sources and ignore any problems with them. That is not how you build an ACCURATE encyclopedia, which is clearly what the whole point of Wikipedia is. We're supposed to check facts. And part of fact checking is analyzing whether or not supposedly reliable sources did a good job with their fact checking. In the case of Taylor, they clearly did not. Not one of the sources provided any supporting evidence for their label. There is plenty of evidence from reliable secondary sources demonstrating Taylor is not a white supremacist, such as the reliable secondary source dictionary definition of "white supremacist" being compared with reliable secondary sources consistently showing everything Taylor is ever on record for saying is NOT in accordance with said definition. That's not original research; that's editors looking at what reliable secondary sources actually demonstrate and using logic to determine that the label does not apply. NFLExpert49 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC) "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Yes, this article is based primarily on reliable, published secondary sources which say, quite clearly and without equivocation, that Taylor is a white supremacist. Yes, you have "evidence" that, based on your interpretation, would disagree with the reliable, independent secondary sources. Your interpretation, in search of the truth, is not acceptable here. That you disagree with the independent reliable sources is obvious, but moot. If the New York Times, Washington Post and ABC-CLIO were exactly as they are save for calling Taylor a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia should say that Taylor is a cheese sandwich. I would, however, expect that other equally reliable sources would be discussing whether the Times, Post and ABC-CLIO had lost their collective minds. I don't see that here. Zero independent reliable sources say, "Gosh, normally dependable sources have gone crazy and started to label Taylor a white supremacist when he's been working to get the children of the world to join hands and sing in peace and harmony." "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Where is the primary source that says -- without interpretation -- that Taylor is not a white supremacist?- SummerPhDv2.0 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Except I'm not doing other than putting different reliable secondary sources together to arrive at a logical conclusion, using common sense. The common sense of editors is the whole point of Wikipedia. The dictionary is a reliable secondary source that, in combination with reliable secondary sources that quote Taylor's actual views (and I'm not referring to how he labels himself), contradicts whatever casual label a few other reliable secondary sources put on Taylor. The dictionary has more weight than the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Claiming there is proof that Taylor is a white supremacist - which is what is necessary in order to label him such, as you can't be asked to prove a negative - is objectively false. There is no quote in existence from Taylor that matches the dictionary's definition of "white supremacist." The casual label used in a few reliable secondary sources does not hold more weight than other reliable secondary sources that common sense demonstrates are far more applicable to the topic. NFLExpert49 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC) You want to combine a definition for "white supremacist" from one source (A) with information from another source (B) to say that Taylor is not a white supremacist (C). A + B = C. Currently, the article reports what multiple reliable sources of the highest order say. The dictionary does not say Taylor is not a white supremacist. The dictionary says nothing about Taylor at all. Independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist, he founded and runs a white supremacist magazine, published by white supremacist foundation, funded by a white supremacist fund. So Wikipedia says the same. This has been discussed with you repeatedly. It's time to hear the consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) NFLExpert49: If you aren't bringing anything new to the table, there's no reason to think that the consensus would have changed since you posted this, this, or this. Taylor is described a white supremacist because reliable sources describe him that way. There are no reliable secondary sources that dispute this label, and Taylor's protestations to the contrary are not really worth taking seriously. Nblund talk 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Taylor is White advocate

Please don't waste our time -- User:Calton 14:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I move that Taylor be described as a White advocate, for that is what he is. He is not a “White supremacist”. As a historical term, that needs to be retired. 184.53.32.212 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

SPLC And ADL not reliable sources

Please stop wasting our time -- User:Calton 14:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The SPLC is a radical leftist organization that the FBI has dropped from its list of partners because they are far-left extremists. They should not be considered a reliable source. The ADL also has had links to organized crime from its inception and has been involved in countless crimes and underhanded conduct. They are not reliable source on who is or isn’t a “White supremacist” or anything else. They should be dropped from ever being used as sources for Wikipedia. Therese groups have no moral right or basis to be the arbiters of what is “hate” or what isn’t. 184.53.32.212 (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Simple Question

I have a simple question: Is the goal of Wikipedia to repeat what "reliable secondary sources" say, or is it to be accurate? If "reliable secondary sources" say something that every reasonable person knows is false (by simply using common sense), are editors just supposed to ignore common sense and make edits they know are false? Because, that's what's going on here with the lead. NFLExpert49 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that every reasonable person knows that Jared Taylor isn't a white supremacist? Because... yeah, no, every reasonable person knows that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Stephen E. Atkins (2011). Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-1-59884-351-4.
• Kathleen R. Arnold (2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 508–. ISBN 978-0-313-37522-4.

--Moxy 🍁 06:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:TRUTH. In fairness: if Wikipedians all agree that a source clearly gets it wrong, there might be an argument for removing or hedging on a claim. In this case, the sources aren't wrong. Nblund ^talk 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources are wrong. The dictionary says they're wrong. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning again....because six months ago all this was explained to you ....most of Society doesn't believe in the play on words. ...CQ Researcher, (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity: Selections from CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link).--Moxy 🍁 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that quote from Taylor that falls under the definition of "white supremacy." All you need is one. Repeating numbers from studies actual scientists conducted showing that different races have different mean IQs is not "white supremacy." White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior, period; not just intellectually superior, on average, to some races. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

NFLExpert49, what part of "dictionaries do not take precedence over reliable expert sources" do you not understand? Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary is the ultimate reliable source. Unlike the sources you guys have posted, it's actually peer-reviewed. Capiche? NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but ignoring past discussions and policies won't get you anywhere but blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

NFLExpert49, Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:TSF and report back. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is just absurd. Wikipedia has officially jumped the shark. Somebody seriously made a Wikipedia rule that says that appealing to actually peer-reviewed sources like the DICTIONARY is a fallacy? It's an "appeal to authority" fallacy to cite the dictionary, but it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to cite somebody's article in the New York Times, or someone's poorly researched book? Congratulations...I'm officially done with Wikipedia. That's...there are no words. You people don't even believe the stuff you're spewing. Have fun policing all the wrongthink people's pages with your 5-6 person SJW editor clique. Everyone outside Wikipedia thinks you're a joke. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

One last thing: Claiming that the dictionary is unreliable for the meaning of words shows a lack of understanding for how dictionaries work. Dictionaries are peer-reviewed by PROFESSIONALS to ensure that every meaning that is in common use (CONSENSUS) is listed. If it were consensus that "white supremacist" meant something that applies to Taylor, it would be in there. Alas, it's not. That's because the consensus definitions for "white supremacist" have nothing to do with anything Taylor has ever said. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec*2)Barbara Perry is associate dean and professor of Social Science and Humanities in Canada (2009). Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 115–117. ISBN 978-0-275-99569-0..--Moxy 🍁 20:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary does not say the sources are wrong. They say nothing at all about Taylor or the sources. Your synthesis is not helpful. Your 7 month long quest is not going to be resolved by repeatedly arguing on this talk page. I'd suggest you open a Request for comments or use another source of dispute resolution. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

To edit for partisan bias and defamatory untruth which will only seek to create further racial divides in this country. This man does not consider himself a racist nor do many who follow him, it should say this here. 216.70.29.154 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. If you have a reliable source for him not being a racist, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a "reliable source" for anyone in the history of the universe "not being racist?" There's no such thing as a "reliable secondary source" for something like that; saying somebody is not racist is nothing more than speculation. Any source that makes that kind of a claim as though it is fact loses all credibility and therefore isn't a reliable secondary source. NFLExpert49 (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree - isn't this a bit too categorical just to paint a person "racist" on Wikipedia, basically the first site on the whole Internet that comes up when one googles his name? Yes, his beliefs are controversial, but he himself claims not to be a white supremacist. I think that the claim of him being a white supremacist shouldn't be in the very first, i.e. defining, sentence. The world isn't just black and white, and Wiki shouldn't be neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchan12345 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't ignore reliable, third-party sources on account of the personal opinions of editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't just say he is a racist, we say he is a white supremacist, as is the magazine he edits and the organization behind it. We say these things because that's what independent reliable sources say. (Every organization mentioned in the first paragraph is white supremacist or white nationalist.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources are useful for different things. If you wanted to list Jared Taylor's height, you would want a secondary source looking at his medical records or something that can confirm it, rather than take his word for it. If you wanted to list what Jared Taylor's favorite movie is, you would ask Jared Taylor. Likewise, if you wanted to list Jared Taylor's political beliefs, you would ask Jared Taylor. If NYT or CNN or another source that isn't Jared Taylor describes him as a white supremacist, and he himself states that he isn't a white supremacist and regularly explains why he doesn't believe in white supremacy but instead uses the phrase "white advocacy," then those sources writing otherwise are not reliable, any more than if you had a source of Jared Taylor saying "my favorite ice cream flavor is pistachio and I dislike strawberry" and the New York Times stated that his favorite flavor is strawberry. How would you call that a "reliable source" and take it as more accurate than the subject's direct account of his own thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5402:5900:ACBF:86F2:5978:17EB (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Political beliefs, racism, homophobia, criminal convictions, all of that kind of stuff seems to mysteriously disappear when you stick to primary sources. Suddenly, everyone is an angel who wants all the children of the world to gather in a sunny meadow to join hands and sing songs of love, joy and racial harmony. In first person primary sources, there are no racists, dictators or megalomaniacal mass murderers.

In the present case, every proper noun in the first paragraph is white supremacist according to multiple independent reliable sources. Taylor is a white supremacist who founded the white supremacist American Renaissance. He is author and the president of white supremacist magazine's white supremacist parent organization, New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of the white supremacist The Occidental Quarterly which is funded by a white supremacist organization. He is a former director of the white nationalist National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens.

I kind of doubt you will ever find satisfaction here. You might do better elsewhere. Conservapedia doesn't have an article on Taylor, I'm not sure how Schlafly feels about Taylor, so I'm not sure if you'll be any happier there (it's probably 50/50). Rationalwiki says he's the intellectual godfather of the racist political far-right, so I don't think you'll be happy there either. Assuming the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi Metapedia has an article on Taylor (I'm not interested in looking), I think it's likely to be something you'd feel comfortable with. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I know I said I was done with Wikipedia, but I just had to respond to this comment. "Political beliefs, racism, homophobia, criminal convictions, all of that kind of stuff seems to mysteriously disappear when you stick to primary sources. Suddenly, everyone is an angel who wants all the children of the world to gather in a sunny meadow to join hands and sing songs of love, joy and racial harmony. In first person primary sources, there are no racists, dictators or megalomaniacal mass murderers." This is a fallacious argument. You are making an assumption that those things must exist, and therefore labeling certain people those things when you figure said people come the closest of anyone you know of to matching those descriptions. You lower the bar in order to keep the term going. This is how certain people with an agenda manage to perpetuate these terms, despite never having proven that there are still people who actually fit said terms to begin with. It's a form of propaganda not much different from what the Nazis used. Moreover, using the adjective, "megalomaniacal," demonstrates the presence of opinion. Encyclopedia entries are not supposed to reflect an editor's opinion. Stick to the facts. The only fact that has been provided so far is that a lot of journalists demonstrated they believe Taylor is a white supremacist. The next step is to use common sense to determine whether or not these sources are reliable for this particular claim. Of course, this is a lost cause, because Grayfell and a few other SJW editors are policing this page to ensure readers know Taylor is a very bad guy with wrong opinions, the same way they do for the pages of every other controversial figure SJWs dislike, and therefore label "alt-right," etc. NFLExpert49 (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You are free to believe that racists, dictators or megalomaniacal mass murderers do not exist or that the real problems in the world are from "SJWs". However, independent reliable sources say that Taylor and all of the organizations, magazines, etc. he heads, publishes and writes for are white supremacist. That is verifiable and, as a result, is what the article says. If you would like to write that he is just misunderstood by SJWs, you might want to check the policies at Conservapedia and/or the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi Metapedia and see if you can write it there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is facile. Jared Taylor is not John Harrison, and absolutely nobody cares about Taylor's "favorite flavor of ice cream". Reliable sources look at Taylor's statements and make the informed conclusion that he is a white supremacist. Anyone who purports to be surprised by these conclusions either isn't paying attention in the slightest, or is being disingenuous. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you telling me that there's no primary source of this man, who is labeled as a white supremacist and apparently now the godfather of racist politics, declaring whites are superior to others? Is he just bad at being a white supremacist and doesn't get how it's supposed to work? What is the label based on then, just the supposition that he must be a supremacist even if he doesn't know it? You could certainly label him as a White Nationalist and White Separatist, but the way the article begins with "Jared Taylor is an American white supremacist and editor of a white supremacist magazine, published by a white supremacist publisher, and if you're reading this right now then you're a white supremacist too" is ridiciulous, inaccurate well-poisoning.

The ice cream analogy wasn't far off. If Jared Taylor states that he doesn't see white people as superior to others (if anything, he could be considered an East Asian supremacist), and then New York Times states that he does, why are they the more reliable source? How would they possibly be able to verify that question better than he could? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5402:5900:7CD7:C16D:546C:8653 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Your question presupposes that there is a functional difference between a "white nationalist" and a "white supremacist." Mainstream reliable sources generally disagree, because the idea of creating a separate "white" ethno-state in the United States (which has never been entirely white in all of human history) inherently involves forcible removal of non-white people, which is, indeed, a white supremacist action in that it imbues in white people the power to forcibly remove all non-white people from a place where they currently live. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

For one, Jared Taylor has addressed that very idea and doesn't believe in the forced removal of non-whites, or even forced separation. Does that disqualify him now from being labeled White Supremacist? Secondly, no, White Nationalist and White Supremacist are not synonyms. One wishes to live among their own people, the other wishes to subjugate other peoples. In some sense, they can be considered nearly opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.223 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the old "live among their own people" line. This is a violent fantasy. These people would be selected by white supremacists, I suppose? No, they are the same ideology. "White nationalism" was coined by white supremacists in the 1970s as a way to make white supremacy sound more palatable. Some white supremacists have tried to build an ideology out of this distinction without a difference, and over the years, some academics and journalists have fallen for it. It's no longer all that palatable, though. Hence "white advocate", "white separatist", "white identitarian" etc. Reliable sources recognize this ideology for what it is, more or less, even if they don't always agree on the terminology. Grayfell (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a way to lump a lot of people together to misrepresent and dismiss them. Where does the "violent fantasy" come in, by the way? To lump everything together gives the impression that living in a white neighborhood or having mostly white friends is no different than lynching, enslaving, and colonizing non-whites.

Your "these people would be selected by white supremacists" line reminds me of when Trump was elected and had the support of some KKK members, and that was enough justification to label him a White Supremacist and a Nazi, despite disavowing them. It weakens the phrase when you allow the definition to become so vague and adaptable that even someone who states that white people are not superior to other people can be called a White Supremacist, because a third party just feels like they must be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.223 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If he doesn't believe in forced separation, then he believes in second class citizenship. In either case, he's advocating for a system where whites hold political power and wield it to advance the interests of whites. Taylor is, by his own account, unable to offer any term to describe this ideology, but it's an old idea, and others have come up with a word for it, even if Taylor can't. Nblund ^talk 17:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

He believes in natural separation that he believes occurs when government doesn't force integration, as well as stricter immigration policies. Maybe in 1999, he hadn't settled on the phrase to use ("White Supremacist" and "Neo-Nazi" had existed for him to use at that time if he felt it was accurate), but he now refers to his belief system as White Advocacy, meaning yes, looking after the interest of white people, as he himself is white. One doesn't need to view himself as superior to others (in fact, he often talks more positively about East Asians than of whites) to look after their self-interests.

In the interview you linked, he's making the point that his beliefs are widely accepted and encouraged when adopted by other racial groups, but labeled racist or supremacist when applied to whites. That general way of thinking among all people, he says, there is no word for, as it would be considered "normal." If the white expression of that is singled out, he uses the term "white advocacy," rather than have it mischaracterized as racism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.223 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of society does not think the rebranding has changed anything about the ideas of theses people CQ Researcher, (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity: Selections from CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link). -Moxy 🍁 18:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

At least in the media, but that brings us back to what's more important; correct information, or popular misconceptions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.223 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

He's also called himself a "race realist". Coincidentally, I've settled on calling myself a "correctist" because my views are correct, and I value correctness above all. Alas, some people seem to believe my chosen descriptor is a little self-serving and they've continued to call me a liberal. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS our job is not to "correct" anything, and there's really nothing here to correct. Taylor believes in rolling back civil rights protections to ensure white political dominance. That ideology is called white supremacy. It's very old and very dumb and very unpopular, so Taylor comes up with other names for himself. We're under no obligation to help him rebrand himself. Nblund ^talk 18:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Race-realism, a phrase that distinguishes one set of beliefs from a different set of beliefs that you wish to attribute to him. This edit isn't about righting great wrongs either, but about correct and accurate information, assuming that wikipedia strives to be factual and not a collection of gossip. If I'm wrong, keep it, but otherwise, it's inappropriate for the first sentence of the page as a statement of fact about his identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.223 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Taylor is not an independent source for information about himself or any of the organizations/publications associated with him. If they were, our article on McDonalds would cite McDonalds press releases and tell you how absolutely wonderful everything about them is. One can only imagine what articles about various politicians and religious leaders would say. Like McDonalds everyone else, he likely has a distorted view of himself and would tend to be rather biased in his reporting of who he is. Additionally, he is not a "reliable source". We're not saying you can't trust what he says (which is not to say you can...), we're saying he does not fit the criteria Wikipedia outlines at WP:IRS.

As a result, Wikipedia uses what independent reliable sources say. Such sources repeatedly and directly state Taylor is a white supremacist. That he believes some other more palatable term is better is irrelevant. Please see WP:V for more info. If you still disagree, feel free to start another request for comments. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

Change "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white supremacist[2] and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist online magazine Taylor founded in 1990." to "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white advocate and editor of American Renaissance, a white nationalist online magazine Taylor founded in 1990."

This is to better reflect the idealogy that Jared Taylor subscribes to. Sueszelma123 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done pls read the sections above and refer to all the sources in the article.--Moxy 🍁 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notforum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
American White Supremacist “Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white supremacist” Well that’s a libelous whopper. If you call someone a pedophile and they are not a pedophile, they can sue you. The same is true for “White Supremacist”. As a historical term, that honest and truly needs to be retired. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. Millions and millions of more and more people are coming to hold views that could be described as such. Does Taylor merely believing that the West should remain European make him a “White supremacist”? Does pointing out the fact that you can’t have Western Civilization without White people make you one? Liberal journalists and academics and editorialists cited by Wikipedia are not reliable sources that keep in line with Wikipedia’s claim to neutrality. Anyone with a left-wing bias should never be cited due to Wikipedia’s claim to neutrality. Can anyone PLEASE explain to be how White nationalism is different from Zionism? Wikipedia does not condemn Zionism. It does condemn White nationalism. Why? Zionists believe that the Jews have a right to their historic homeland. White nationalists believe the same about their own nations, but for White people. Why is one bad but not the other? X06 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Remove : is an American white supremacist [ this is in contradiction to wiki definition of supremacist 'belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them.' from watching a few interviews with Taylor it is clear that this is meant as a smear also some other definitions of Taylor might be incorrect . pages like this with sloppy descriptions, I believe will be more harmful in the long run 92.251.54.232 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed, Wikipedia uses what independent reliable sources say. Such sources repeatedly and directly state Taylor is a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

There have been several recent "nationalism isn't supremacism" edits which ignore reliable sources, both here and at the American Renaissance article. Was there some post on reddit or youtube or something about this recently? If so, please be aware the issues surrounding WP:MEAT-puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Declaring the Anti-Defamation League to be "a bunch of liars" is not constructive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==White Supremacist is a libelous whopper== This is not a forum or soapboxy comment, all arguments I am making are pertaining to the article’s lede. I don’t care what the “reliable sources” say. If “reliable sources” commit libel, they should not be used by Wikipedia. The ADL and the SPLC are a bunch of liars. How can the SPLC still be treated as a valid source by Wikipedia after the mountains of scandals that have erupted as of late? If advocating for the interests of White people makes Jared Taylor a “White Supremacist”, then does not advocating for the rights of Jewish people as the Defamation League does make them “Jewish supremacists? Why is it okay to advocate for Israel being a Jewish state, but White people have to become minorities in all of their historic homelands???? Mr. Taylor is described as a “White supremacist” because he believes White have a right to remain the majorities in our historic homelands. The “reliable” sources, for that reason, label him a White supremacist. Okay. Then by that logic, advocating Israel being a majority Jewish state would de facto mean that ANYONE who holds that position be labeled by Wikipedia as a Jewish supremacist. Any Japanese person who wants Japan to remain ethnically Japanese would have to be labeled a “Japanese Supremacist”. But why doesn’t Wikipedia do that? Wikipedia doesn’t want to create the impression that the reality is that Jews are powerful and White people are marginalized, now does it? I know I made a few brief arguments but they all pertained to the lede and improving this article. I and tens of thousands of other people who read that lede demand explanations and I propose that it be changed to White advocate. Unless Wikipedia believes that there can’t be such a thing? X06 (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jared Taylor is the Editor of American Renaissance and the president of New Century Foundation. Describing him as a 'white supremacist' is not correct; he describes himself as an advocate for the white race. I have watched many of his videos and I have not seen him do or say anything to suggest he is a white supremacist. Samthewikieditor (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done -- don't you even bother looking above?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is the Editor of American Renaissance and the president of the New Century Foundation. Describing him as a 'white supremacist' is not correct; he describes himself as an advocate for the white race. I have watched many of his videos and I have not seen him do or say anything to suggest he is a white supremacist.

If you watch the following video and fast-forward to 12:58, you can see that he doesn't even identify himself as a white nationalist. Furthermore, he explains his views on white nationalist at 13:59. Taylor also talks about his religious views as being a Presbyterian at 20:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmWBYrMv7O8

A more accurate biography should read: "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the Editor for American Renaissance (an online magazine he founded in 1990), and the president of New Century Foundation. Taylor is a Presbyterian and an advocate for the white race all over the world."

PS. I have updated the request of July 1st to remove 'white nationalist' which was also incorrect. Also, I have included his religion for those interested to know about that as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samthewikieditor (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Still  Not done -- As before, this has been discussed in tedious detail many times. Editing other people's edit requests is also not appropriate, as explained on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased impression fostered by photo of Taylor on this Wikipedia article

A picture can be worth a thousand words. The subject of race is probably beyond the possibility of rationality transcending biases or political cultural identity. Wikipedia tries, and the test of the article is as objective as the subtext of terms allows. I contend that the photo of Taylor is that of an arrogant smug individual.

I'm sure there are more neutral photos of Jared Taylor that would not have this characteristic. As an assignment for a social psychology student, put the current photo with a neutral one and one that indicates benevolent wisdom. Have multiple choice of characteristics that describes the person. I've seen doctoral theses based on less than this.Arodb (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's literally his standard photo - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, taken from an earlier version of his website.[4] @Arodb: as that was his choice of photo, your interpretation is interesting. But there is absolutely no reason not to use a photo he chose himself. That's as NPOV as you can get. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of being neutral, you want a photo that "indicates benevolent wisdom"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Not a White Supremacist

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:DEADHORSE, naked anti-Semitism, etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“White Supremacist” as a historical term needs to be retired. He wants America and Europe to remain majority European. That does NOT make him a White Supremacist. He does not want to bring back Jim Crow or colonialism. He just wants freedom of association for all races. Would Wikipedia be this hostile and offensive towards a Zionist who wanted Israel to remain majority Jewish if Jews were threatened with minority status in Israel? Why is there no phrase in academic circles called “Jewish Supremacist”? More and more Arab land is being stolen on a constant basis, daily murder, genocide and brutality by the Israelis occurs against Palestine, and yet even the most feverish Israeli expansionists are never called “Jewish Supremacist”? Why the double standard against White people? Let’s just cut the crap. The media, academia, and the establishment are biased against White people. Just as I’m sure if Wikipedia had been founded in the Soviet Union, they’d have had all sorts of nasty names for the (soon to be deceased) people who were anti-Communist in their articles. Truth is whatever those in power decide it to be. And Jared Taylor, whatever the biased and lying “reliable sources” say, is merely a White advocate. He advocates for the continued existence of White people. He doesn’t want White people to rule over or oppress anyone. 184.53.33.152 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Taylor being an “evil White Supremacist” is what the President of the United States calls FAKE NEWS. No one likes or trusts the media anymore. They are being more and more irrelevant by the day. Wikipedia should call Taylor what he is: an American WHITE ADVOCATE. 184.53.33.152 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Please review CQ Researcher (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity: Selections from CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. pp. 4–6...--Moxy 🍁 02:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Can you please try again, but this time where I’m not immediately bombarded with names like Rosenthal and Levin? 184.53.33.152 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Wow. No, your prejudices do not determine which sources are reliable. Independent reliable sources say Taylor, his magazine, the foundation and the council are white supremacist, so Wikipedia says the same. Independent reliable sources say the institute is white nationalist, so Wikipedia says that as well. Given your rant against "the media, academia, and the establishment", you are unlikely to ever be happy here. You may wish to try Conservapedia (though you'll likely still have trouble there) or, more likely your speed, Metapedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Actually, it seems you've heard all of this before, under IPs 184.53.32.54, 184.53.33.218, 184.53.32.188, 184.53.33.235, 184.53.33.151, etc. Wikipedia is not going to change its policies based on your complaints here. If you'd like the project to reject sources from the media, academia, the establishment and people with "with names like Rosenthal and Levin", I can safely say you're wasting your time, but you can try suggesting that at either Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Village pump. In any case, there is nothing more to discuss here. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

My citations

I was adding some citations regarding Jared Taylor's views on race but then my edit gets reverted. What was it within my edit that was found to be disagreeable? All the sources that I added corroborate Mr. Taylor's racial views reliably and accurately yet I was still reverted. MichelinDiode (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

One of several problems with your edit is that Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Readers will not benefit from arbitrarily selected and obscure examples of "Mr. Taylor's racial views", and the article should instead focus on reliable, independent sources. What Taylor calls his views is, as has already been discussed on this page multiple times, a form of public relations. Further, "race realism" is a feeble and transparent euphemism which doesn't fool anybody. We don't use promotional euphemisms for the same reason we don't let companies include advertising copy in articles. There are other problems, but that's enough that these changes should not be restored. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

^Seconded Generally, we try to avoid giving too much credence to the self-descriptions of fringe thinkers like Jared Taylor. "Race realism" is a euphemism for decidedly unrealistic racist pseudoscience. Taylor's support for "complete freedom of association" is really an obscurantist reference to his demand for the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws. We should describe his views without trying to put a positive spin on them. Nblund ^talk 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am by no means a follower of Jared Taylor. He is an obscure nobody in my circles. I do have to question the idead of providing "positive spin". Isn't the way the article is written giving negative spin, and thus violting WP:NPOV? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV neither says nor implies that we will or should give no judgement on subjects. Taylor is widely reported to be a white supremacist. Whether being a white supremacist is a good thing or marks him as an abhorrent outsider to sane civilization is an opinion. We merely "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" report what independent reliable sources say: he's a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)