Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 1

Masked coward punched Spencer whilst Spencer was being interviewed.

Spencer was punched from behind by a masked protester whilst he was being interviewed at the time of Trump's presidential inauguration. Some media organizations have called it a 'sucker punch' but within Australia this type of attack is appropriately termed a 'coward punch'.

White nationalist or white supremacist?

I think it should be included in the lead that he is a white nationalist, not just white supremacist, which is often used a dysphemism, but the sources we are using identifies him as so. He is also identified as a white nationalist only. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

White nationalist is what white supremacists call themselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So does that mean that Black Nationalist (BLM) are "black supremacists"? Having an interest in the welfare of one's own race is not a racist ideology. White people exist; white people have similar concerns as any group concerning jobs, health, education and their children. Why does that seem to automatically reduce down to "white supremacy"? Nothing but reverse racism is what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:AD95:62A5:EDD2:9811 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia differentiates between the two, so that's WP:POV from you. Just no. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

• SPLC dscribes him as white nationalist and white separatist[1]. And mentions white supremacy twice.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)They are different in principle, but in practice the difference is barely acknowledged by most sources. The article says he's president of a white nationalist think tank, so the connection is made perfectly clear in the lede. Over-emphasizing this difference is pointless and non-neutral, and as white nationalism points out, white nationalists avoid the word supremacy because of its negative connotations. While it's preposterous to pretend that "white nationalist" doesn't have the same negative connotations, it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't use WP:EUPHEMISMs. Also, white supremacists are described by Wikipedia as a subset of white nationalists, so what's the problem with the current wording? How many layers of redundancy do we really need here? Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Grayfell on this point. Many reliable sources describe him as a white supremacist. As a result, that's the more accurate description, as it's a subset of white nationalist. Rockypedia (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources didn't mean that he's a white supremacist in the sense of him adhering to a subset, the sources meant he's a white supremacist in the POV way. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

@Connor Machiavelli:, what does "in a pov way" mean? I am never clear what you mean by that and I don't think you are. I'd also like to know when you think it's acceptable to use the term "white supremacist" as you rarely if ever agree to using it. Note please that I'd appreciate answers to both questions. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean sources define him in different ways. According to Wikipedia, I don't think he's a white supremacist of white nationalism, prove he adds ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to his ideology, then. Also WP:UNDUE. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

I have no idea what you mean. What does "According to Wikipedia" mean? I don't understand any of the rest either. Why would I prove anything? What do social Darwinism and Nazism have to do with this? Nor do I understand why at Alt-right you want to keep in material sourced only to one poor source, while here you think WP:UNDUE can be applied to something with 3 sources. 4 soon I think, checking another one.[2] Doug Weller talk 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It already says he's a white nationalist, so why different wording? "White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups within white nationalism. The former seek a separate white state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to their ideology.[4]" from white nationalism on Wikipedia. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

Your reasoning is original research. We go by what reliable sources say, and we don't use Wikipedia as a source. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia has the source right here, [4] http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2003/04/interviews-offer-unprecedented-look-into-the-world-and-words-of-the-new-white-nationalism-60031/ Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.

No mention of Spencer there. Doug Weller talk 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we've reached consensus on this topic, based on the fact that multiple editors have agreed that the current terminology is the most accurate one, Doug Weller and Grayfell have articulated why the current terminology is the most accurate, and the only reason this is still going on is that the only editor still arguing for a change to "white nationalist" is Connor Machiavelli, and every argument presented by him has been refuted point by point. At this point we're just stretching this argument out beyond common sense, and it's a waste of everyone's time. Rockypedia (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you must justify the "White Supremacist" label, if anything. And White Supremacist someone advocating that Whites must rule Blacks ad perpetuum. Is Richards Spencer advocating for this? Please quote him on that. --41.151.21.3 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

See the ongoing discussion on this very issue here: Talk:National_Policy_Institute#White_supremacist?

Cesar Tort 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." NPalgan2 Spencer does not accept the label "white supremacist". If the subject finds the distinction important, there is a hurdle to clear. And I'm not listening to a 20 minute Maddow monoologue. (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The NYtimes link describes him as chairman of a white nationalist think tank. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean the one titled "White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites"? There is no reason to confine out interpretation of sources to the first sentence found by typing ctr+f. The substance of the article is clear.

Not liking a source doesn't make something poorly sourced. Video sources are a hassle but if you're not willing to listen to them, then it's hard to take your complaints seriously. He is known for promoting white supremacist views regardless of what he calls himself. The distinction between white supremacist and white nationalist is mostly a euphemistic word game anyway, and most sources use them interchangeably.[3][4](yes, Buzzfeed can be a reliable source)[5] etc. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Spencer's *public* position is that he is not a "white supremacist", though those terms are commonly conflated with "white nationsalist" and "white separatist". His denial *must* be in the article, and a rebuttal given from a RS that has considered the difference and said, yeah, he is. BLP requires that contestable material be removed until consensus is reached. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So find a source where he claims he's not a white supremacist and use that to add a rebuttal, if you really must. You merely saying that he doesn't admit something about himself isn't justification for ignoring multiple reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Time article quotes his denial is already in the article. Can you at least give a time stamp for the Rachel Maddow video? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's around 2:30, where she calls him "sort of America's foremost white supremacist" among other things. If you already have a source, use it. Edit warring isn't going to work, and removing reliable sources like the Maddow clip without good cause also isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

removing BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr There are a number of in depth profiles, interviews from RSs of Spencer. They mostly tend to note his denial of the supremacist label, talk about his views, note that he hangs out with open white supremacists like KKKers (note part of the definition given in the wikipedia article for white supremacists is wanting to rule over non-whites, which Spencer publicly claims not to), and then let the reader make up their own mind. An unscriptedn designation by Rachel Maddow is not RS. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. Just saying it's not a reliable source doesn't make it true. Unflattering things, even offensive things, are not automatically BLP violations if they are true according to reliable sources. Basing this on part of one definition of the term is either shifting the goalposts or missing the point. Sources are saying he's a white supremacist. You are free to add sources explaining his position, and that should probably be done either way, but that's not a valid reason for removing multiple reliable sources to the contrary, of which Maddow is only one example. Grayfell (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Coming from BLPN. It is not in keeping with NPOV to describe someone in the lead solely according to their own self-identification when there are reliable sources that give a different characterisation. It's fine to indicate what his own preferred term is, but it isn't okay to give only that term -- that's the NPOV problem in a nutshell. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

*The sources you reverted were wonkette.com link, a slate article that did not explicitly call spencer a supremacist and an unscripted rachel maddow clip. to override spencer's denial there needs to be RSs. Also, WP:WEIGHT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, him espousing white supremacist ideas is what he is notable for. If he wasn't a white supremacist, we wouldn't have an article on him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I added three more sources on this. It's not like they're hard to find. It's what he's known for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• NY Times "The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute ...". Can we stop being ridiculous now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Slate "Better Know an RNC White Supremacist: Richard Spencer" - the dude is standing there holding up a sign which says "wanna talk to a racist?" ffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And on this whole "white nationalist" vs "white supremacist" crap. As Maunus says above "white nationalist" is what white supremacists call themselves. And as one of the sources I added says "white nationalism is the suit and tie version of white supremacism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No WP:ORIGINAL. If it doesn't say directly that he is a White Supremacist, then it does not go in the article. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

But it DOES fucking say he is a White Supremacist! A bunch of them do! Are you really going to sit there and deny an obvious, easily checked, fact with a straight face??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of SPLC (which has its own issues with POV-pushing), what other source labels him a White Supremacist that isn't also a tabloid like Wonkette? You self-admitted that the headlines alone are good enough for you, disregarding the content. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh.... New York Times. Slate. LaCrosse Tribune. LA Times implicitly. Like I said, you're sitting there and trying to deny something which is very easily checked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Show me the exact passages from each of these sources that says he is a 'White Supremacist' because upon further inspection of all sources provided so far, not once does Spencer identify as a 'White Supremacist' nor is he identified as one by the newspapers in question; For example, nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist.

Try again. Bring some meat to the table. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I. Already. Did. Two quotes right above. Here, again

The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute

"White Supremacist: Richard Spencer"'

Other sources do the same.

Now quit wasting my fucking time by asking questions which have already been answered. It's impossible to believe you're acting in good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90: "nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist.". New York Times: "The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute". And this was pointed out already. I mean, what the hey?!?! Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't link to the story, because it wasn't a story at all: You didn't want anyone to know that it was an opinion editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/opinion/donald-trumps-alt-right-brain.html

As I said: Bring some meat to the table, not tabloids, not opinion pieces, and THEN we'll talk. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For a description of a person, who's known for white supremacism, this is perfectly fine. There are also other non-opinion sources that I provided which you are ignoring [6]. "White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites" - an article about Spencer. [7]. We can keep going through all of them but it's really a waste of time, since you don't appear to be listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, The New York Times and the Associated Press are not tabloids and the articles published therein are not opinion pieces. There are no sources cited which say he is not a white supremacist, so there is no apparent dispute in reliable sources regarding his adherence to white supremacy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And I would add that this is because there is absolutely no sense in which mainstream reliable sources recognize any significant difference between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy." It is a distinction without a difference, no matter how much racist groups want to attempt to create one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"The New York Times and the Associated Press are not Tabloids...

Right, but the articles linked were opinion pieces.

There are no sources cited which say he is not a white supremacist

There are no sources that say you're not really a robot or axe murderer, either. Should we assume that you are one based on sources lack of sources that deny it?

Lack of evidence does not imply that someone is part of a group or ideology. Furthermore, none of those sources listed above explicitly call Spencer a 'White Supremacist'; at the most, it is inferred but never explicitly said, which isn't enough to call him a White Supremacist, and would greatly violate BLP. Famiarlise yourself with the rules: WP:BLP Solntsa90 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"It's a distinction without a differene" Then why do you continue to POV-push for 'Supremacist', if it means the exact same thing as 'Nationalist'? Solntsa90 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

To avoid BLP, a friendly reminder that opinion pieces, tabloids and editorials are not valid sources on Richard B Spencer being a White 'Supremacist'

Just a reminder. Any source that gets posted that refers to him as a "White Supremacist", I will personally review to make sure that the source isn't an opinion piece or tabloid, and if it isn't, that it actually explicitly states that Spencer is a "White Supremacist".

So far, no such sources have passed this scrutiny, from what I can tell.

Solntsa90 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a notable opinion held by many notable people that he is, and as such the opinion bviously needs to be included per WP:NPOV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New York Times isn't a tabloid. First you were denying that the sources existed. Then you were denying that the sources say what they actually say (despite the fact that the sources were quoted to you three or four times). Now you are pretending that the sources are "tabloids" or editorials. They're not. Seriously, cut this shit out. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither the NYT nor the AP are opinion pieces, and they clearly describe him as a white supremacist. There is no BLP issue here; the sources are impeccable. At best you're arguing due weight, but I would suggest that NYT and AP are pretty much gold-standard sourcing. (Came here from BLPN). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Etc etc etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on a link at random, which turned out to be this one:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37433759

It's easy to make the distinction between what news media outlets refer to him as and what his own website/articles and words refer to his beliefs as. To say Richard Spencer openly promotes "white supremacist" views is a misconception, when there are ACTUAL people who do promote those views. Bulldog123 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based upon reliable sources, and reliable sources describe him as what he is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And that's included. Bulldog123 17:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your rationale is not very clear here - there are lots of RS that support calling him a white supremacist, where are the (reliable, secondary) sources that support the description you added? Remember we are basically dealing with FRINGE material here, there's no way we should be giving his self-description (or your personal, apparently WP:OR assessment of his views) more prominence than high quality sources like the NYT. See WP:WEIGHT. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

For the twenty-billionth time, nobody is denying that lots of RS call him a white supremacist and nobody is removing them. It's included on the second friggin' sentence. What sources DO make clear is that he DOES NOT ESPOUSE 'WHITE SUPREMACIST" views. He's denied it on literally every single interview. There are people who DO espouse "white supremacist" views and admit it on interview. Also, tons of RS list Spencer's views as "identiarians," because he's pan-European, which is NOT PART of the ideology "White Supremacism" (Go here, here, tons of sources to back this up). Just because you don't understand the difference between the two movements (or think there isn't one) doesn't mean you can change it on here. Bulldog123 05:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are remotely reliable. We know the purported difference between these niche racist ideologies, but as an encyclopedia article, this needs to be a clear reflection on the consensus. Reliable, neutral sources emphasize that he's known for promoting white supremacist views, regardless of whether or not he is a self-professed white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We describe people as reliable sources describe them, even if they personally disagree with those reliably-sourced descriptions. As our article states, he is primarily publicly known for promoting what a wide array of impeccable reliable sources describe as white supremacist views. We note that he disagrees with that description, but his disagreement does not trump the AP, NYT and other independent reliable sources. Moreover, your attempt to describe a link to Radix (a notorious white supremacist blog) as a "reliable source" aptly demonstrates why consensus here is clearly against you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well said (by both of you) - Bulldog, there is a pretty firm consensus against your edits here, you really shouldn't still be trying to reinsert them. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above 3 users. Sources need to be reflected. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"White Supremacism" is not interchangeable with "White Nationalism" or "Identitarianism." They each have different ideologies, whether you want to "believe" that or not. This is easily sourcable. Sorry, but "consensus" from a bunch of "non-experts" on a wiki is irrelevant when every article, every interview you can find Spencer explicitly describes that he is promoting views that don't align with the ideology detailed in the White Supremacism article. If you want compromise, reword the sentence to reflect what is being "promoted" by the person versus what is being "said" about him. Two different things. Bulldog123 07:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. Your disagreement with those sources is irrelevant. This isn't a matter of "compromise," reliable sources say he's promoting white supremacism and that's the bottom line here. I suggest you self-revert your edit before you're blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

...And nowhere does it even mention the word 'supremacist', let alone the phrase 'White Supremacist'. You're not being a very honest editor here, really trying hard to POV-push. You're just posting links, hoping no one will actually read or scrutinise them. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on another link at random takes me to 'The Rachel Maddow Show'. I don't think you understand what constitutes a impartial source, and suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BLP. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the sourcing could be cleaned up. Reviewing the discussed sources, the only one that reliably and expressly calls Spencer a white supremacist is the AP story. The others should be removed per WP:V and WP:CITEKILL. The New York Times story comes tantalizingly close but doesn't quite make it there, in my view. (Neither of these are opinion sources, btw.) (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• According to current version, he is an American writer, publisher, and self-described white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. That is exactly what these sources tell. Looks good to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the sources tell, if you just heard what Dr. Fleischman said, only one source reliably calls him a White Supremacist, and one single source (even if from AP) may not be enough to force a label onto someone, especially when that person denies said-label (though that is something I'm unclear of, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify how many sources you need to make a label stick). Solntsa90 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Version by VM and others does not tell that "he is a white supremacist" (as the title of this section wrongly suggests). It tells he is a writer known for promoting white supremacist views, and that is exactly what all these sources imply. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keyword: 'Imply'. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• My suggested phrasing (given agreement on cites) is "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist [insert many RS cites here], a claim Spencer denies." This is because, if the subject of a BLP repeatedly publicly claims not to believe in <whatever> the lede of the article should not say he does believe in <whatever> without explicitly (as opposed to implicitly as current wording) noting his denial. And wikipedia maintains six separate articles for white nationalism, separatism, supremacism and black nationalism, separatism, supremacists. If RSs really do agree that the two concepts "white nationalism vs supremacism" is a distinction without a difference, I invite them to propose a {{merge }. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comment, as I was pinged back: We cannot state what a reliable source only implies, per our policy on original research, which says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis mine.) The AP source is reliable and calls Spencer a white supremacist. Therefore we can say he's a white supremacist. I am comfortable with the current wording. We just need to remove the references that don't verify the content (and weaken the article by causing some readers to question our neutrality). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From yet another NY Times article: "The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world." (emphasis added). How many sources do we need, exactly? Is it 6? 7? 200? Rockypedia (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion piece. Not reliable for this purpose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The headline of an article at Interactive One: "Roland Martin Clashes With White Supremacist Over White Angst, Donald Trump". It's an article about Martin's one-on-one with Spencer. Do you think Interactive One is an unreliable source? Rockypedia (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I generally take the position that headlines aren't reliable, but the body of the article says Spencer supports white supremacist views, and that's good enough for me. However I'm stumped about reputation of News One / Radio One / Interactive One for accuracy. They do seem like a large and serious news outlet, yet I haven't been able to find anything about their editorial staff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle, founded in 1841, and the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world, describes Spencer as such: "The Alt-Right - the term was first coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer". Honestly, I think the original lead skated around the issue by only saying "known for promoting white supremacist views" - there appear to be plenty of reliable sources straight-up describing him as a white supremacist, so the lead should just say that. Rockypedia (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From a Bloomberg article about Milo Yiannopoulos: "Richard Spencer, a smartly dressed, University of Virginia-educated white supremacist". I've lost count now of the reliable sources describing Spencer as a white supremacist. Rockypedia (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

These last two seem like good sources to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take all of those comments under advisement, and I suppose I'll add those last two if this white-washing nonsense of removing "white supremacist" from Spencer's page continues. Rockypedia (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll just note that Solntsa90 is the only editor (I think) claiming that WSup shouldn't be in the lead, my preferred phrasing (as I noted above) would be "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist [insert many RS cites here], a claim Spencer denies." I'd be fine with straight up calling him a "WNal, Id and Wsup" as long as we note his denial of Wsup. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is almost okay except for the word "claim" - WP:CLAIM details synonyms for "said" that should be avoided, and for good reason. It appears to lessen the legitimacy of the first part of the sentence, and really, the part that's less relevant on Wikipedia is what Spencer calls himself. The way he's described in secondary sources is what counts. I don't mind a sentence detailing that Spencer states that he is not a white supremacist, and instead self-identifies as an "identitarian" - which is pretty much where the lead was before all this nonsense started, and why I oppose the changes that have been attempted. Rockypedia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How about "who has often been described as a white supremacist, though Spencer rejects this description." That neatly includes Spencer's denial while giving prominence to the mainstream viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. Spencer rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian."

I feel that splitting it into two sentences is important - reliable secondary sources are the key, and what a person describes themselves as (a primary source) should not be given equal weight. Rockypedia (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with Rockypedia's formulation. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are reliable sources

WP:RS WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Nbauman (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there something specific you're referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflicted

I wanted to bring up an issue I am having with this page. Since seeing The Atlantic piece with the excerpted video of the 2016 convention, I wanted to find out more about Spencer. To be very upfront, I do not support his views. I noticed that his Wikipedia page could use a bit of TLC in terms of citations (my specialty), so I spent a bunch of time working on the citations with the intention of doing further reading on Spencer. I wanted to gather information for my own personal understanding, and have found that often fixing up Wikipedia pages, this is a mechanism that allows me to research subjects and people.
After doing this work: I am very conflicted about the end-result of the improved condition of his page as result of my efforts. On one hand, I very seriously don't want to help this man and his organizations. On the other hand, I wanted the data about Spencer to be very clear in terms of linking to a wide variety of sources, both pro and anti his efforts, to illustrate his work -- so others could easily find this data and parse it on their own. So I hope that this has been done with the spirit of Wikipedia #Neutrality in mind. But I remain conflicted, because I don't exactly feel great about learning what I have learned, and again, I don't want to support someone who preaches concepts I object to so fundamentally. I wonder if other editors have any thoughts and/or constructive ideas on this issue. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no sympathies for Spencer either, but I think you should feel reassured that there's nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to writing objectively and truthfully about even your fiercest ideological enemies or people who are exceedingly far from your own values - especially on a popular source of public information like Wikipedia. If people can't even address their opponents' arguments and ideals correctly, then real discussion has been lost. BigGoyForYou (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing public records per BLPPRIMARY

I have removed two sources from this article; they add nothing to the article's content and link to purported personally-identifying information such as birthdate and parents for a decidedly non-public figure, namely the article subject's father. I don't see any reason to make it easy to find Richard Spencer's father's alleged parents' names. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is also no reason to include the father's full name and the associated link. It's not encyclopedic, it's OR, there's NWP:NPF also. The Mother Jones profile mentions the father's profession and it's encyclopedic as it illustrates RBS's uppermiddle class background. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

Please change:

„He spent the summer of 2005 and 2006 at the Institute Vienna Circle.“

to

„He attended the Vienna International Summer University in July 2005 and in July 2006“

https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/VISU_2001_bis_2016.pdf https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/

JanMug (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That removes information about when in the years he was at the university, which does not seem like an improvement. Pppery 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The new wording exactly specifies when in the years he attended the Summer School in Vienna. Richard Spencer never spent any time “at the Institute Vienna Circle“. This is important. The institute‘s director Prof. Stadler has clarified this on the Institute‘s website: https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanMug (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done This doesn't seem like a contested point. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Remove "known for promoting white supremacist views" from the first sentence, or provide primary source citation to support this claim. The three sources cited are secondary sources who provide no evidence in the body of their works for the validity of such a claim. Secondary source claims that either contradict primary sources, or are unsubstantiated by evidence from primary sources are invalid or fallacious. Citing the prestige or reputation of a secondary source is not a valid argument for the truthfulness of the claim. Either cite primary sources which demonstrate that Richard Spencer has actively promoted white supremacy, or edit the current text to unequivocally reflect that any allegation of white supremacy promotion is unsubstatianted by evidence; such as, "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist, alleged by many to promote white supremacist views.[2][3][4] Codylarson (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done -- an edit request of this sort is implemented only when there is consensus for it, and in reality the consensus evident on this talk page goes in the other direction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the consensus on this page follows fallacious argumentation. Asserting the truth of a claim because of consensus is invalid. Consensus is of limited value only with respect to opinion. The truth of a claim is independent of how many persons assert it. Facts are supported by objective, verifiable evidence. If Richard Spencer has made statements which promote white supremacy, primary source material will exist to support this claim. Until primary source material is presented, these claims remain allegations, and should be clearly identified as such. Let it be a point of common purpose here that content be edited for greater clarity and objectivity, not to establish a comfortable, if erroneous, consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codylarson (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Views 4th Paragraph

In the views section in the fourth paragraph it states that an individual was disinvited from an event and another individual was a guest speaker, but it appears there is no actual mention of what event one spoke at or what event one was disinvited from. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.15.115 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Steven Bannon is chief strategist, not chief of staff.

Chief of Staff is Priebus. Article needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalnumber7 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Please change every instance of "white supermacist" to "white nationalist" as it does not represent his views and it would be presenting a wrong image to the viewer. AR4P2020 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

How he describes his own views is beside the point. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AR4P2020 did not say anything about how Spencer describes his views. Rather, he's saying that Spencer is more aptly described as a white nationalist than as a white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalnumber7 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Take out ", known for promoting white supremacist views" Dogisrain (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"known for promoting white supremacist views" is untrue and the author/wikipedia may be held libel is s court of law.

Not done: Well supported by references. Also see Wikipedia's policy on legal threats EvergreenFir (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

"He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture."

Requesting citation for these quotes. Basgta519 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done these are already sourced in the "Views" section - The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, and should not, normally, include citations - although this article seems to break this guideline - Arjayay (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017: Adding a citation

I would like to add a citation on the quote in the summary:

He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[citation needed]

Here is the source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ JoeyS7 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation Link

The claim that there's a "link" between the Heritage Foundation and the National Policy Institute, based on "reporting" by an opinion broadcaster, Rachel Maddow, is yet another example of why Wikipedia is untrustworthy on any controversial topic. For starters, Maddow isn't a reliable source. Secondly, her broadcast cited gave no evidence whatsoever for a "link" between the two groups. There was no "reporting" in the clip, only an unfounded assertion. Yes, Wikikids, there's a difference. Really.

This is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to smear the Heritage Foundation, which has no ties to neo-Nazis. The tipoff is the use of a content-free and highly tendentious "report" from a far left-wing talking head to justify a claim backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Now, having been through Wikiwars before, I won't stick around for this one. Wikipedia is fine for non-controversial stuff that we used to find in the World Book encyclopedia, but the politically-motivated roving flash mobs here just cannot resist their temptations, and will naturally support each other. So you will keep the unfounded, ax-grinding claim in the article, to the ongoing detriment of Wikipedia. Have fun, kids. And no, I didn't contribute to their fundraiser. 73.239.55.87 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll never understand the need some have to point out that they didn't/won't contribute money. What kind of garbage encyclopedia would this be if that was a deciding factor in editing decisions? If that's not the point, then why even bring it up at all? Anyway, the connection could definitely be explained more clearly, but it is supportable by many sources. Maddow is a pundit and also a reporter, like it or not, but the connection between the two through Richwine's 2010 AlternativeRight articles (he left Heritage Foundation three years later) has been documented by multiple other sources. The reference currently used is not Maddow directly, but another source commenting on Maddow's story. Other sites commenting on this include RawStory, SPLC, Washington Post, Slate, and the conservative Washington Examiner. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's "supportable by many sources," then cite them. Rachel Maddow is hardly even close to neutral, and the program cited as a source didn't even support the allegation except to make it. This is tendentious garbage of the kind that has gotten Wikipedia banned as a source in universities around the world. 73.239.55.87 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the Maddow's reliability--I'm sure there's something about it at WP:RSN--but I agree that referring to an unspecified "link" between NPI and the Heritage Foundation report is weasely and uninformative. This "link" is reliably documented, so we should describe it. So I did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolve edit war

The starter has come under dispute in the wake of a recent David Pakman interview. Can it be resolved? --Volvlogia (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that. What is the dispute? Rockypedia (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the edit history, I think Volvlogia wants the first sentence to call Spencer an identitarian, sourced to a YouTube video. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ski club incident

I'm inclined to think that including the ski club incident is undue weight. He wasn't expelled from the club, charged, sued, or anything like that. There was some coverage, but one of the main sources we are relying on is by Spencer himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that current sourcing does not support notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Spencer says that the incident had no significance!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's bloated and should be trimmed. It's useful context for the later events in Whitefish, but perhaps not useful enough based on sources. Also, if it's supported by multiple news outlets, surely we can find something better than Radix, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We could simply say: "A dispute at a ski club in Whitefish, Montana, which was covered widely in the American press, increased local public awareness of Spencer, that he and his work were at least partially based in Whitefish some of the year. This resulted in rallies and local anti-racist efforts against Spencer and his company." This would greatly reduce the verbiage, and I think make the issue more understandable.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

' A dispute at a ski club in Whitefish, Montana, which was covered widely in the American press,' it was mentioned on Rachel Maddow and Daily Beast, but that isn't 'widely covered'. And your suggestion sounds like SYNTH, linking the ski club dispute to later protests (I mean you're probably right, but is there an RS saying so?) NPalgan2 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is the phrase in bold. The other text is already in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Then i'll change it. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've condensed the paragraph to one sentence which I think reflects the source. I hope this is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist vs white supremacist vs both

The current first sentence says that Spencer is a white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. Isn't this redundant and confusing? White nationalism says that white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism. So if he's known for promoting white supremacist views, why not just say he's a white supremacist? Sorry for being late to the party, but I don't see a prior discussion on this particular topic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There was objection to stating that a person promoting white supremacist views was a white supremacist. I'd support describing him plainly as a white supremacist in the lede if you'd like to change it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you access archived talk conversations? There isn't a link NPalgan2 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, here was previous consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer/Archive_1#To_avoid_BLP.2C_a_friendly_reminder_that_opinion_pieces.2C_tabloids_and_editorials_are_not_valid_sources_on_Richard_B_Spencer_being_a_White_.27Supremacist.27 Searching today on google news for 'Richard spencer white supremacist' gets 90k hits, 'Richard Spencer white nationalist' gets 360k hits and the media outlets on the first page are more likely to be ones that wikipedia uses as reliable sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It'd think this means nothing if "white supremacist" is indeed a subset of "white nationalist." You need to find sources that say that Spencer is not a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are sources that avoid explicitly calling Spencer WS while calling him WN - note especially the discussion in the last http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-inauguration-white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched-on-live-tv-during-abc-interview-20170120-gtvyqe.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-confronted-protestors-texas-appearance/story?id=44061233 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/world/americas/white-nationalism-explained.html NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. We need sources that say he's not a white supremacist, not sources that don't say he's a white supremacist. A subtle but hugely important distinction. And the ABC News source strongly supports the contention that he is in fact a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources above clearly decline to make the extra step of saying RS is WS. They say he is WN, they may quote people arguing he is WS or that WS=WN, but the reporters and editors made the final decision to call him WN and leave the judgment up to the reader. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Obvious BLP issues, but I still think this simplification is worth considering. "Clearly decline" implies that they specifically announce that they are not going to call him a white supremacist. I don't think it's that clear. We have sources calling him a white supremacist, and we also have sources calling him a white nationalist. Even sympathetic sources agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. Since the punch incident, there's been a noticeable shift in how sources describe him, as well. Previously cautious sources now seem comfortable just calling him a neo-Nazi. That's not going to work here, but it does highlight how silly it is to get bogged-down in Spencer's self-serving word games. At some point we have to draw the line and admit that "is known for promoting white supremacist views" is stilted and euphemistic. It means exactly the same thing as "is a white supremacist", doesn't it? Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP is supposed to be a bit cautious. "Since the punch incident, there's been a noticeable shift in how sources describe him, as well." Since the punch was only a few days ago, I think we should wait to see if media description of him really has changed. ""Clearly decline" implies that they specifically announce that they are not going to call him a white supremacist." No - specifically \neq clearly. When I google site:nytimes.com richard spencer it's clear that they generally say 'white nationalist Richard B. Spencer' not 'white supremacist Richard B. Spencer. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but a google count is original research. Yeah, okay, so was my Nazi comment, but my point was not that we should call him a Nazi, rather that we should focus on the substance of the sources as a whole, which rarely, if ever, emphasize the supposed distinction between white nationalist and white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I just gave three RS articles about Spencer which spent time discussing it. Current wording in the lead follows weight of RSs by calling him WN while noting that WS is often used to describe Spencer, though the wording is awkward. Other NYT articles that use WN: Richard B. Spencer, a well-known far-right activist https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html 3 days ago the white nationalist leader Richard B. Spencer www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html Dec 12, 2016

The white nationalist Richard Spencer https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html Dec 20, 2016 Richard Spencer, a white nationalist in Montana, said Mr. Trump was “ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/politics/donald-trump-white-identity.html Jul 13, 2016 NPalgan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, as NPalgan2 suggest. We follow our verifiability policy, which means we call a spade a spade. Multiple reliable sources say Spencer is a white supremacist, and we've found no reliable sources saying he's not a white supremacist. That should settle the matter. In fact it does, since we have consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not what BLP policy says - "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere *strictly* to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" You're basically saying that if we have 1) sources saying that something is A, 2) sources saying something is hyper-A, and 3) sources saying something is A but quoting people who say it is hyper-A then we should say 'This thing is hyper-A'. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Back to the topic of this section: here's 3 examples of RS talking about Spencer promoting white supremacist views [13],[14], [15]. As I said in an earlier discussion (scroll up on this page), if you don't like the verbiage, we can just go with "white supremacist" as well. I feel that's just as accurate given the numerous sources available and I would be fine with that too. Rockypedia (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should use prefer to use better sources like NYT/LAT/WSJ/LATimes NPalgan2 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We can use all reliable sources in combination with each other. Point is, there's plenty of sources to support "promotes white supremacist views" or "white supremacist." Either would work in the lead. But eliminating that phrase is clearly not an accurate option. Rockypedia (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give NYT equal weight to livetradingnews.com and irishexaminer.com I'm not arguing in favor of eliminating 'WS'. Current phrasing is good. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those NYT sources say he's not a supremacist, nor do they even imply it convincingly. Fixating on the NYT is missing the point. We're not trying to count-up the scores of a ball game, we're trying to convey the substance of why he's notable. We also have many reliable sources just saying "racist". That's also accurate, but imprecise. White supremacist is, according to multiple sources, accurate. So is it precise enough to be more informative? CNN: Video posted online by the outlet shows the white supremacist speaking to... The article later comments on Spencer's denial of being a supremacist, and dismisses it with a counterpoint from his own words: Spencer denied being a white supremacist in a December 2016 interview with Ganim. But, in that interview he said, "Only white people can support what we call Western civilization." He also has said there should be a "peaceful ethnic cleansing," meaning individuals not of European descent should voluntarily leave the United States. CNN directly contrasted his self-description with his stated beliefs. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The simplified wording [16] is an improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Can someone with more technical knowledge of talk pages please add links to the talk page archives? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Thanks - will the header have to be updated manually when the archives get large enough to be two pages? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope! It's all automatic. That's one reason I prefer {{talk header}} to the archive boxes from the old days. That and it looks nicer and is easier for mobile users. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, would you mind changing the archiving to the standard automatic scheme, rather than one click archiving? I just noticed that a discussion that was started on January 21 was then one click archived 16 minutes later. Granted, it was a pretty weak discussion topic, but that shouldn't have happened. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: The auto archiving is in place. The one-click archiving is done my any individual with the OneClickArchiver script in their common.js file. In other words, CFCF did that manually and independently from the archiving bot. If you want to revert the archiving, I think that's kosher. IMHO, just reverting or {{hat}}/{{hab}}-ing the original IP edit instead of archiving it would have been better. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. As for reverting, it seems like water under the bridge to me. I just hope CFCF doesn't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I should just have deleted it per WP:FORUM. That however would have taken 3 clicks instead of one. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you should have left it because it was arguably suggesting a change to our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Genocide

Richard's alt right magazine/website has put forth the questions on whether we need the black race and whether black genocide should be completed, via archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right It further delves into what would be the easiest way to dispose of them etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.9 (talk) 14:40 27 January 2017‎

I don't think we should be putting anything in our article from Spencer or NPI unless it's received coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I just don't think we should be in the business of promoting that sort of content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

recent assault on Spencer

A lot of media is covering this. I found out about it via SNL. While the incident itself probably isn't notable, it seems like the reaction is. Also seems to be speculation about identity if masked assailant. Ranze (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article. And any speculation about an alleged assailant should definitely not be in the article per WP:BLP. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit: Spencer is moving his Virginia base of operations from Arlington to Alexandria

Links:

The ‘alt-right’ arrives in Alexandria http://alextimes.com/2017/01/the-alt-right-arrives-in-alexandria/

Richard Spencer's 'One-Stop Shop' for the Alt-Right - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-one-stop-shop-for-the-alt-right/512921/

For one Alexandria neighborhood, the 'alt-right' is all wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

Thanks. 152.180.6.2 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

The first line calls Richard Spencer "a noted American white supremacist". Each of the "citations" of this claim link to websites that state that Richard claims not to be a white supremacist, while the website refers to him a white supremacist anyway without presenting sufficient evidence to support their claim. Several people have called him a white supremacist, but that doesn't make it so. Please change the text from "white supremacist" to "political activist" or even to "political activist who has been called a white supremacist, but claims not to be." or something along those lines. The original citations can remain. 74.199.66.41 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist, neo-Nazi and political activist would be best. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling him a neo-Nazi is misleading and offensive, I agree with the rest though. In the video where he got punched during Trump's inauguration he says that he isn't a neo-Nazi shortly before it happens. Then fake news sites helped spread the "It's okay to punch a Nazi" meme. Riley Cohen (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This was discussed extensively above in the section titled "White nationalist vs white supremacist vs both" and the consensus was that "white supremacist" was appropriate. There are numerous reliable sources calling Spencer a white supremacist, and none that dispute that label. Spencer himself is not a reliable source. His viewpoint is noteworthy, but doesn't change the fact that he is verifiability a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move: Richard Spencer (white supremacist)

The title of this article isn't consistent with our naming policies and guidelines, which suggest that we should move this article to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). The vast majority of reliable independent sources refer to Spencer as Richard Spencer, not Richard B. Spencer, and then we have to disambiguate him from the many other notable Richard Spencers. I would be bold and make the move myself but I'd like to achieve consensus first due to the controversial nature of the proposed title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. I wasn't aware of the naming conventions, but in light of that, seems like the right move. Rockypedia (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not all sources call him a white supremacist; some refer to him as alt-right activist, white nationalist activist or a number of other labels. There's also the fact that he denies it. Given that the WS label is extremely contentious for obvious reasons, I don't think we should be using that in the page title. In addition, there are only a handful of articles that use (white supremacist) in the title, and those are people that have embraced that label. However, there are a huge number of pages of all sorts of fringe activists that use the disambig title (activist), so I think that if it does need to be moved (which I'm uncertain of, but not enough to form an opinion) then Richard Spencer (activist) would be the more neutral term. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but most do, hence the lead sentence. That said, I'm a bit on the fence about the proposed move. Neutrality and BLP are concerns, though I think we have enough sources to support the proposed move. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer (activist) is not an accurate descriptor. Rockypedia (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it not? He runs a think tank, publisher, website and podcast with the aim of promoting his political ideology. Sounds like an activist to me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Find a bunch of reliable sources that describe him first and foremost as an activist and then you'd have an argument. Unless that exists (which it doesn't) the "activist" label in the article title is completely inappropriate. Rockypedia (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Activist" is easily verifiable, man. "An assault on Richard B. Spencer, a well-known far-right activist," [17]. JRBx45x (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede that most do, sure. However, calling someone a white supremacist is probably one of the most odious labels in the English language, and extreme care should be taken when using it in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not contesting the use of it in the lede, since it is well sourced there, but I think directly applying the term in the title is too much. This is especially true when we have a completely neutral disambig term available which is accurate, precise and has far, far more precedent. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have similar concerns (though the shoe does fit). I'm curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer (activist) is confusing since there are multiple Richard Spencers who are politicians. If we can't get consensus to use Richard Spencer (white supremacist) then Richard Spencer (white nationalist) seems second-best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, current article title is in accordance with policy WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use... Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" The current title Richard B. Spencer has been or is mostly used by many RSs - The Atlantic, Chronicle of Higher Education, The Guardian, Newsweek, NYT, CNN, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Links please. The most relevant guideline is WP:INITS, which is specifically about whether to include a subject's middle initial. If the majority of independent sources use the "B.," then I'll withdraw my proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:INITS says "*Generally*, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". Generally, not always. The disambiguation policy discusses when other considerations come into play: "...commonly used in English (even without being the most common term)". Richard Spencer probably is used more often than Richard B. Spencer, but Richard B. Spencer is often used in RSs and the subject himself often uses it. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so unless I've misunderstood something you haven't explained why you think we should break from the general rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use... Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" We have a good natural disambiguation there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should use a middle initial whenever there's a disambiguation issue? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In general, and if the middle initial form is commonly used by RSs and the subject, sure. I'm saying that we have two forms of Spencer's name in common use - Richard Spender and the current article title Richard B. Spencer. The former is ambiguousvbut the latter is not. As wikipedia policy says natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, we shouldn't change the title to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). NPalgan2 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If a parenthetical disambiguation is contentious, then sure. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Simply because Richard B. Spencer sounds neutral/NPOV and we would be opening a can of worms if we did the suggested move. No doubt he would use it to self-victimize, and we don't want to encourage him. Let's try to keep this article as NPOV as possible--I know that's hard, but within reason. (By the same token, shouldn't "white supremacist" in the lede be in quotation marks instead of being in the voice of Wikipedia?) There is also the slight chance that he may change his mind and no longer hold these heinous views later in life, but his name won't ever change.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There's consensus in the discussion above that he's a white supremacist, so I don't think neutrality is a problem. And frankly how the subject reacts shouldn't be our concern. That sort of argument is really a slippery slope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I just think it is more encyclopedic to be completely neutral, especially with such bizarre topics. (Also because the definition of "white" is meaningless unless one is a racist; there is zero difference between us no matter how we look, so a false sense of supremacy is a delusion and cannot be put in the voice of Wikipedia. We would be normalizing the construct.)Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrittanyPBone: I have reverted your unilateral (and obviously premature) page move. Please join the discussion here and wait for a consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Though the original discussion was that moving it to "Richard Spenser (activist)" didn't have enough sources describing him at such. Now that more several reliable sources have been added describing him as an activist, this seems to be the appropriate title.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record this discussion also seems to be less than 24 hours old, so I don't see a 'longstanding consensus'; we need to take the new sources into account now and come up with a solution.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and archives before jumping into a dispute; there is a longstanding consensus that "white supremacist" is the appropriate opening descriptor for this person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying, I won't war with you but I don't think you should just delete sources out of the blue like that. I put the sources I had added on my sandbox, some might not be the best so you are free to look over them and determine which ones are not reliable, a few might be duplicates of the same source on different websites:

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

references
References

Re: DrFleischman - Fair enough, I think the sources above should still be added to the opening paragraph describing him as a "far-right activist" rather than deleted from the article entirely. As for the title of the article itself I will let that play out.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We should focus on the topic at hand, which is whether the article should be moved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would accept a move to Richard Spencer (white nationalist). This is almost universally accepted by sources, including Spencer, and is sufficient to differentiate him from other people with the same name. "Activist" would be insufficient for that. Richard Spencer (white supremacist) would be okay as well, I guess, but titles do not allow for context, so I think I would prefer the former. In the event he recants his views, the article name can and should be changed again. Zigzig20s' raises some very good points about normalizing racial constructs, but we're limited to what sources say. If there's a reliable source which discusses Richard Spencer and white identity as a cultural construct, I would love to see it. Sources I've seen pretty clearly link him to the ideology without that awareness, however. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Richard Spencer (white supremacist). That's how sources describe him. --Tataral (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose For every source that describe Spencer as a white supremacist there are two to three that refer to him as a "white nationalist," a term he himself uses and doesn't oppose. This move would be highly partisan. JRBx45x (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "White supremacist" is a loaded term. I prefer "activist" or "white nationalist" if this becomes a problem in the future. Isn't he the only Richard Spencer on Wikipedia that we know has B. as a middle initial? He does use his middle initial in his domain name and Twitter name so this article can easily be found and identified as him. Thus no real need to change the article title right now.

A "[race] supremacist" descriptor could broadly be applied to other people which some here I think would object to. For example, Steve Harvey and his recent joke about Asian men. Yes, some people thought that was racist. Riley Cohen (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A clear misunderstanding of policy. Reliable sources don't call Steve Harvey a racial supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Richard Spencer (white nationalist)

Does anyone object to a move to Richard Spencer (white nationalist), and if so, please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I argued above that the current article name is the correct one, following WP:INITS and WP:NCDAB read in concert but you didn't really respond. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you, I just had nothing to say in response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd object to that, as it's well-documented by reliable sources that "white nationalist" serves as a "brand-friendly" euphemism for white supremacist, and that would be the object of this name change. So no, I would not support such a move, in the interest of not white-washing what Richard Spencer does for a living, which is to promote white supremacy. Rockypedia (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be false. Wikipedia makes a distinction between nationalism and supremacy. We have separate, well-referenced articles on White nationalism and White supremacy, and they establish that they are separate, though often related. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That's sort of a problem with those two articles. The former one in particular has some problems.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See [18] for the numerous sources explaining how "white nationalist" is a sanitized version of "white supremacist" Rockypedia (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support I still think the current title is perfectly fine, and would prefer (activist) as a second choice, but this proposal is reasonable. It is accurate, precise, one of the labels commonly used by sources, and the subject himself embraces that label, so that would resolve my objection on BLP grounds. If consensus forms above that it does need to be moved, and activist is not precise enough, I would support this more strongly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Look, I'm sorry to sound a one note horn over and over again, but wikipedia policy is to prefer a title without parentheses to one with parentheses if there is a suitable, unambiguous one in common use, even if it may not be the most common. Richard B. Spencer is in common use by the subject and RSs and it's unambiguous. No one has explained why this line of argument is wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an accurate description per sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The (white separatist) proposal above isn't closed; if you have an opinion on it could you please share it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Richard Spencer (white nationalist). Sources, and even the article's opening sentence, describe him as a white supremacist, so that's the description that should be in the title. --Tataral (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Twice as many sources refer to him as a white nationalist. You can't really pick which one you think suits him better. JRBx45x (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't need a description in the title. The current title conforms with wikipedia policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per NPalgan2; there's no need to have a fight over the article title when the current title is perfectly fine. We're wasting enough digital ink arguing over the first line of the article as it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Put me in this camp as well - current title is fine, there is no one really complaining about it, and it's a reasonable compromise given the other (much more contentious) options above. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support - As somebody who's written a lot about hate groups in their job, I can assure you that "white nationalism" and "white supremacism" are two separate movement that often but heads and in-fight. To conflate the two because of the ignorance of certain low-level journalists is a huge disservice to BOTH truth and verifiability. JRBx45x (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all great. Unfortunately, "somebody who's written a lot about hate groups in their job" is not considered a WP:RS. If you can find reliable sources that state what you just stated, that's a different story. Rockypedia (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It takes less than 10 seconds for you to find this. All you have to do is look. There's a reason white supremacism and white nationalism are separate articles and don't re-direct to one another. https://books.google.com/books?id=H2KXPhIUMlcC&pg=PT141&dq=White+separatism+and+white+supremacism+are+subgroups+within+white+nationalism.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiwJHn-OrRAhWErlQKHUZVCn0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=White%20separatism%20and%20white%20supremacism%20are%20subgroups%20within%20white%20nationalism.&f=false]. JRBx45x (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That books is published by "Cram101 Textbook Reviews" and includes a direct copy/paste of the lead of Wikipedia. Beyond being unreliable and WP:CIRC, the source also supports that white supremacism is a subgroup of white nationalism. They are not separate movements in the slightest, one is, at most, a subset of the other. They are also used euphemistically to normalize and imply greater ideological diversity than exists. This is supported by Wikipedia's articles, and many reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

JRBx45x, as someone who's written a lot about hate groups in their job, you oughtta know better than to take everything you read on the Internet at face value. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support And I strongly support not calling him a "white supremacist" though I don't think that will gain "consensus". It was only recently changed to that. Not even David Duke is called a "white supremacist" (yet). I wouldn't be surprised if an RFC gains consensus to change all mentions of "white nationalist". Riley Cohen (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Japan wants to restrict refugees.[19]

Some Jews want to have their own country (Israel).

Some Europeans want to restrict refugees.[20]

Some Whites (Richard Spencer) want to have their own country.

You do not have to be a racial supremacist to support any of these things. You do not even have to be a part of the race/group (see Christian Zionism). X nationalist is a better way to describe those that do. Riley Cohen (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is just factually head-in-the-sand wrong. Spencer has said a lot more than just expressing a desire for white people to have their own country. Jesus, just read our article or the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose we close this discussion. The only two "support" editors are recently-created accounts and looking at [21] and [22], their flurry of recent activity has been mostly concentrated on this talk page. They're both apparently very comfortable with Wiki procedures and terminology despite their recent appearance on the site, and if they're not sock puppets of some other account, I'll eat my keyboard. Rockypedia (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. No one can contend there's consensus for the proposed move. But, if you really want a close you can request one at WP:ANRFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer, jack Donovan and homosexuality

Acording to this source http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/08/now-even-white-nationalists-want-gay-friends/ it refer his stance on homosexuality.

It speaks about how he barred matthew heimbach since he was too anti-homosexual.

"Richard Spencer is president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute and according to SPLC has made overtures to the LGBTQ community. He’s considered one of the founders of the Alt Right, and last year barred homophobes from attending their annual convention, choosing pro-LGBTQ speakers and turning away at least one antigay speaker."

There is even a source inside that links to SPLC about this to be reliable source. BLP violation or not? 83.209.66.168 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's just that one mention referring to one statement on SPLC, I'd say it's not significant. However, if there's more significant coverage of his stance in reliable sources, then sure, I'd go ahead and add it. Rockypedia (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of mention. Not a BLP vio. You only need one reliable source, and LGBTQ Nation appears to pass that threshold based it being fairly widely cited by other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Alleged clear consensus?

Where is this supposed "clear consensus" that the header should ONLY say "white supremacist" and leave out "white nationalist?" I count 4 "opposes" to calling Spencer a "white nationalist" and 3 supports. How is that a "clear consensus?" Not even Jared Taylor has the header "white supremacist" and he has an equal amount of sources that call him one. JRBx45x (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. There's a "weak support" from one legitimate editor, and 2 "supports" from accounts that are likely sock puppets; if not of themselves, then certainly of someone else. As for your vote count, see WP:NOTVOTE. The arguments put forth in discussion matter, not the number of "votes". The editors that support leaving the page as is have presented cogent arguments citing Wikipedia policy as their basis. Your arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other editors have pointed out the major logic flaws in them. So yes, there's clear consensus that the header is most accurate as it is. If you want to elevate the issue higher, feel free to do so. Rockypedia (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to elevate the issue higher. Any suggestions for where I can open this up to outside influence instead of the clear cabal brewing here? I'm not sure what "nice try" means but it sounds intensely partisan. There's a countless amount of sources that describe Spencer as a "white nationalist." Why these should be ignored just because you and a couple of other people "feel like it" doesn't really feel WP:NEUTRAL. If this was a common standard, articles like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, et. cetera should also be listed as "White supremacists" because news articles referred to them as such. Why are they not? JRBx45x (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that describe Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow as white supremacists, then you should change their pages to reflect that. Why wait for someone else? Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why should I? I can easily weight the amount of sources that call those two "white nationalists" versus the few that call them supremacists and merely make a reference to it in the article. I don't need to prove a WP:POINT by putting it in the heading line. That's not what's going on in this article. JRBx45x (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"promoting" white supremacist words

Has anyone provided a single link that proves Spencer "promotes" White Surpremacism? Every single source on the article states he promotes White nationalism, pan-Europeanism and Identitarianism. Can't find a single one that says he promotes the ideology of White Supremacism, which is not equivalent to the prior three. Until that's done, I'm removing the word "promoting" from the first sentence and will continue to do so. Bulldog123 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Again? Do we really need yet another section on this? Presenting this one specific issue as an entirely new problem is a tissue-thin waste of time. The substance of the many cited articles, and many more besides, is that he is a proponent of white supremacism. Sources have only gotten clearer on this in recent weeks. The Washington Post agrees, the NYT agrees, his former classmates agree, the SPLC agrees, the ADL agrees, the Chronicle of Higher Education agrees, CNN agrees. These are not presenting this as a subjective opinion, they are stating it as a fact. This "some media outlets" nonsense undermines the consensus of reliable sources to advance a fringe perspective. The only reliable source saying he isn't a white supremacist is Spencer himself, and sources explicitly do not accept that he is reliable in making this overly-fussy distinction. This horse is dead. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Follow the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad Maunus agrees that we should follow the sources, so I expect him to rephrase the first sentence to do so. Yes, again because you people still don't seem to understand what the word "promote" means. I'll help:

pro·mote

prəˈmōt/Submit

verb

1.

further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Now I've gone through all of Grayfell's sources, and can't find a single one that says "Richard Spencer's goal is to promote White Supremacy." All I see is hundreds of labels, which can and has been including in the article in the form of what it is: "Many media outlets refer to Spencer as a White Supremacist." White supremacy is a distinct ideology in modern America, distinct from White nationalism and pan-Europeanism. They are not the same, even if you'd prefer them to be. Where are the sources that claim he promotes this ideology? Bulldog123 23:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We need to just change the lead sentence to "Richard Spencer is an American white nationalist and white supremacist." There's plenty of non-opinion reliable sources for each of those descriptions and this wording would eliminate the word "promoting". Enough of these white-washing attempts to make Spencer more palatable to the masses. If a person doesn't want to be described as a white supremacist, he should stop publicly espousing white supremacist views. Rockypedia (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

See the ongoing discussion on this very issue here: Talk:National_Policy_Institute#White_supremacist?

(I should have posted this comment here instead of the identical comment above.)

Cesar Tort 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I read your commentary there. It makes one thing perfectly clear: that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works; ie you feel that an organization's description of itself takes precedence over how the organization is described by reliable secondary sources. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Once you understand that error, we can move on and have a fruitful discussion. Until then, it's a pointless exercise. Rockypedia (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow a 2-day waiting period for anyone to find a source that states Spencer "promotes" the ideology of "white supremacy." (No, a headline referring to him as a "white supremacist" is not the same thing) If a source is found, please add it to the main page and I will no longer edit the first sentence. However, if no sources of the like are found, I will revert to a more accurate version twice a day on a daily basis until it is adjusted properly. Happy hunting. Bulldog123 09:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Declaring that you'll slow-mo edit-war against editorial consensus is a ticket to being topic-banned as an Arbitration Enforcement action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to report me. The facts are on my side. You have ZERO sources saying he "promotes" white supremacism. I asked for one. You instead just turned it into an ad hominem attack. Bulldog123 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

See [23],[24], [25]. If you have problems with all three of those, we can go with my proposal below, which eliminates the word "promotes." Feel free to start the discussion yourself. Rockypedia (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the slo-mo edit-war threat, there's a simple fix to this. As there's a number of reliable sources that refer to Spencer as a white supremacist, I propose the lead sentence be adjusted to say "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist." I'd be happy to partake in a discussion based around making this change before doing so. Rockypedia (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence does not need to have his views or others views on his actions at all. Instead it could highlight his profession. The discussion of whether or not he promotes white supremacy could be highlighted in an entire section regarding his public life and his agendas that have led to him being viewed as a "neo-nazi", "white-supremacist", and "white nationalist". Again, this is not necessary to be in the first line as a fact, but more of a clear outline of what leads many "reputable sources" to think that this is his stance or position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.193.71 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Meeting the criteria of "white supremacist"

Wikipedia defines white supremacy as a " racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." How can a man who self-evidently advocates separatism meet this definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:b00:a7e0:48b4:76cb:4df4:3a1a (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017

That is a question for the myriad reliable sources that have described him as a white supremacist. Many of the established journalists who wrote those articles have e-mail addresses or contact pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how 'reliable' the NYT and others really are in covering Spencer, to be honest. Based on the wiki article's own description of his views, he doesn't appear to meet the definition of a white supremacist. Crillfish (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on reliable sources referring to him as a white supremacist, it appears that that is the proper descriptor for him in the article's lead. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the most recent New York Times articles do not call him a 'supremacist.' Here are two from December calling him a 'white nationalist' and not a 'white supremacist': https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer

in its most recent article on Spencer in January 2017, the NYT calls him a 'far right activist' and never refers to him as a 'white supremacist' - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html

Likewise, the Washington Post's most recent mentions of Spencer refer to him as a 'nationalist' and not a 'supremacist' -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/ (January 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist)

Hate Spencer's views all you want (and I do), but the entry to the wikipedia article on him is misleading. I do think there is a definition difference between the two terms. Crillfish (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read literally almost everything on this talk page where this issue has been beaten to a bloody pulp, and then the vote that resulted from that discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So a non-answer? Nearly all latest sources are referring to him as a nationalist and not a supremacist, he claims he is not a supremacist, he doesn't meet wikipedia's own definition of supremacist, but the description is staying because a bunch of anonymous editors who don't like Spencer "voted" it that way? weird Crillfish (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More recent WaPo calling him a WN and not a WS https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html Crillfish (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a more honest approach would be to call him what most sources are calling him -- a white nationalist. Then, say that some sources also call him a white supremacist, which is a label he rejects. Simply affirmatively calling him a 'supremacist' while most reliable sources are not describing him that way does not meet objectivity and verifiability standards in my opinion. Crillfish (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You should make this argument and enter a !vote in the RFC above, that's where this is going to be decided. It's kind of pointless (and disruptive) to have a simultaneous discussion here on the same issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist sources

Are nine citations necessary in the introductory sentence to substantiate that he is a white supremacist? It seems like overkill to include so many sources in that spot.--TM 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done a WP:CITEBUNDLE to eliminate the visual clutter (so the 9 appear as one footnote rather than nine separate footnotes). No opinion on whether we should cut some of the sources. Neutrality^talk 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

the WP:CITEBUNDLE was a solid idea, nice job on that. As for the number, I think that there were so many white-nationalist/white-supremacist/alt-right new accounts coming here and protesting the verbiage, that more sources were added to bolster the case that it's not just a random label being applied to a BLP, so I would think they should stay, if only to avoid the same old arguments coming up over and over again in the future. Rockypedia (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources calling him a 'supremacist' seem largely outdated and opinion based in nature. Most reliable sources are no longer calling him a supremacist. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/ (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia fails again

WP:NOTHERE

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white supremacist.[3] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian. You people are so biased. You think all of your readers are too stupid to be able to read the article and come to their own conclusions, so you insist on applying a label to this guy that he expressly denies. Fuck wikipedia and fuck the people who wrote this page. You can justify your behavior any way you want, but remember the golden rule, assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:8200:4830:b561:b3e7:7c45:5e0 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2017 Is there a neutral definition of 'white supremacist'? If not, and he rejects the label, it should not be used as a definition. It should say he has been called it and rejects it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC) The source makes no mention of that. He says he is a white nationalist but that he preferes to be called an identitarian.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Can I suggest that people not reply to someone who is either a troll or a trolling sockpuppet? There's an RfC, stick to that. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

Why does it say "white supremacist" even if he isn't one? Isn't that defamation? Thanks. Imageuploader (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been rather extensively discussed and there is a consensus that reliable sources describe him as one, therefore so will Wikipedia. Please read the prior discussions and consensus. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no "consensus". There is a plurality of leftist propagandists here who outnumber the honest contributors, and who bluster on until the honest people give up and leave. I'm not a fan of Spencer, but lying about him reflects badly on Wikipedia.77Mike77 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2017 (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.

White Nationalist

Enough of that.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"White Supremacist" is slander. Ruling over other races is not part of this man's belief. READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE White Nationalism and TELL ME how this does not more closely reflect his actual beliefs? "White supremacist" isn't an actual thing; it is a slur. "White nationalist" is actually a belief. Wikipedia, if it is to remain professional, is NOT to use slurs in articles for public figures that are often in the news! I can find plenty of links referring to Spencer as a "White nationalist". He has said he has no problem with that term, and it is infinitely more accurate. X06 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC) @X06: please see this archived RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC) You can be a white supremacist without wanting to rule other races. The ADL paper on the subject[26] has it right, I think. " However, generally speaking, white supremacists of whatever sort adhere to at least one of the following beliefs: 1) whites should be dominant over people of other backgrounds; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; and 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. Anti-Semitism is also important for the majority of white supremacists, most of whom actually believe that Jews constitute a race of their own—a race with parasitic and evil roots." I've suggested that we change our article on it. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) @Doug Weller: Why do we even have a White Nationalism article if nobody can be labeled that? Why are not Japanese people who want Japan to remain close to 99% ethnic Japanese called "Japanese Supremacists" then? There is an article called Japanese nationalism but none called "Japanese supremacist". There is a far-left anti-White bias against White people on Wikipedia. Why do some people, like Jared Taylor, get to be called "White nationalists" in their leads, but not others? Even though White people are native/indigenous to Europe, if a European wants his country to remain majority European, he's still called a "White Supremacist". Further more, IDGAF what the ADL says is "White Supremacist". They are vehemently pro Israel, so why aren't they called a Jewish Supremacist organization? They support the literal ethnic cleansing/apartheid over the Palestinians! Why can't we just have neutrality?! It is NOT OBJECTIVE TRUTH that Richard Spencer is a "White supremacist"! How can Wikipedia claim it is objective truth? How does it go about deciding who is a White nationalist and who is a "White supremacist"? White people are going to be a minority in the United States and at least ten European countries by the end of the current century. You think it will stop at 49%? At what point do nationalist White people stop being "supremacists" for their beliefs? When they are 20%? 5%? 0%? Is a "White supremacist" anyone who believes that White people have a right to exist AT ALL? Is a "White supremacist" anyone who doesn't want White people to go completely extinct? Why should we label Spencer a "White supremacist" just because publications that hate him call him that? Would the lead for MLK's article go "Martin Luther King was an American n****r" because publications who hated him called him that? We all know that there is a disgusting liberal media bias. Why can't Wikipedia truly be neutral and be above that? It is simply not an objective fact that Spencer is a "White supremacist". X06 (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Someone needs a cookie... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC) I don't care what the Defamation League (the true name of that vile organization) argues. X06 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC) This is why we need a general race issues DS... This rant is white genocide conspiracy theory crap. Go read Doug Weller's comments again. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Ummmmm.... Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Yeah, Marek points out some interesting things in X06's edit history. Even beyond the all-caps "THE PROTOCOLS ... COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A HOAX IT HAS ALL COME TO PASS!!!!!! USE YOUR BRAINS!" racist rant, the account is an obvious sock, dormant for 5 years and reawakened 2 days ago to push white-nationalist crap. How has this account not been reported yetRockypedia (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC) @Rockypedia: need to id a sock master first. I have an AE report ready to go though if they reinsert the "nationalist" thing again. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Who cares about some rule-breaking edit from ten years ago when I was 13? What do you people mean by "sockpuppet"? A sockpuppet made in 2006? To the person who said my rant was pure "White genocide conspiracy crap": Mocking my beliefs does not make them not true. (Personal attack removed) X06 (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I'll ask one more question. Wikipedia's policy is "if the media says it, it's true". So if you operate according to that basis, why doesn't Donald Trump's lead state: Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States and a racist"? In other words, why isn't the word "racist" in there? X06 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Richard Spencer is a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. 75.120.137.83 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This proposal lacks consensus. As has been explained many times, a consensus of editors concluded that we should describe Spencer as a white supremacist. Feel free to read through the discussion archives to find out why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not "separated"

Spencer just said in his talk at Auburn University that he and his wife are not separated, contrary to what this article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.13.252 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Three reliable, recent sources (Washington Post, Daily Beast, Raw Story) all say he's separated, or at least he was recently, If that's changed then we need a reliable source to say it before we can include it in our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought Spencer himself is a reliable enough source to determine if his marriage is over or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.200.80 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally yes, but in this case we have three organizations with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy all saying that he's separated, which makes his own statements highly suspect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)