Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: White Supremacist vs White Nationalist

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

---

Requesting a "request for comment" on this issue. Question is whether Richard B. Spencer should be referred to exclusively as a "white supremacist," exclusively as a "white nationalist," or as both a "white nationalist" and a "white supremacist" in the first line of the article. One opinion is that Spencer should ONLY be referred to as a white supremacist because there are numerous media outlets that report him as such ([1]). Another is that Spencer is more identifiable as a white nationalist (again, because multiple media outlets report on him as such [2]), with reference to fact that he is referred to as white supremacist by some other sources. Major issues to consider is that Spencer has repeatedly publically stated that he does NOT identify as a "white supremacist" (this is a WP:BLP article). Another issue is that some editors claim there is no difference between white nationalism and white supremacy so the distinction is meaningless. Looking for alterate opinions. JRBx45x (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• White Supremacist - This is extremely well sourced as it currently stands in the lede, look at the refs (collapsed below) All of those are from reliable sources for facts such as CNN, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Christian Science Monitor. There are also many more high-quality, weight-y RS that call him a white supremacist which are not currently cited (for example: [3][4]) so there is really no excuse for leaving this out. If people are really going to raise a stink about prioritizing this guy's self-definition over what the most reliable sources call him, then can I live with "white supremacist and white nationalist," as their are a lot of sources that call him that, but this seems somewhat redundant, and even if it's included, "white supremacist" should be stated foremost and most prominently. This is really an obvious case of "let's call a spade a spade a spade" - especially when numerous high-quality RS do exactly that. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

references + quotes supporting "white supremacist"
References

• Comment I'd like to highlight a major straw man being set up in this RfC; namely, "Major issues to consider is that Spencer has repeatedly publically stated that he does NOT identify as a 'white supremacist'". As there's a wealth of reliable secondary sources available that describe Spencer, his self-styled label of "identitarian" is less important, and should not (and is not) stressed as prominently in the lead, although it should be included (and is). Rockypedia (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very explicit about how to treat articles for living persons. JRBx45x (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Another procedural objection. RfC statements should be neutral. This one isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh, they tried. The first sentence is the RFC and appears neutral enough. The rest could/should be moved into the OP's !vote. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I will withdraw my objection if JRBx45x removes those sentences. (I was guilty of the same mistake when I did my first RfC.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist. As our article on White nationalism and its sources indicate, white supremacism is a subset of white nationalism. We have sources saying that Spencer is a white supremacist, and sources saying he's a white nationalist. But we have no reliable sources saying he's not a white supremacist. Therefore, "white supremacist" is verifiable and neutral. Labeling Spencer as both a white supremacist and a white nationalist is verifiable and neutral as well, but it's redundant. It's like saying that robin eggs are blue and light blue. Do we need to compare how many sources say robin eggs are blue versus how many say they're light blue? No, both are verifiable, so we choose the more precise label to better inform our readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think there is some confusion as to what the point of this RfC is. Nobody is denying that there are plenty of sources that refer to Spencer as a white supremacist. You can list all 125,000 references [5] to this if you wish. However, there are nearly 4 times as many hits for "Richard Spencer white nationalist" on Google [6] than there are for "Richard Spencer white supremacist." The two are not synonymous, so why is "white supremacist" front and center with no mention of "white nationalist?" JRBx45x (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think people understand that's the point of your argument, but the point of the RfC is to establish consensus around whether we should describe as a white nationalist, a white supremacist, or both. You have made your point, now letter others make theirs. No one is obligated to frame the issue around your arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My arguments? I've made no argument in this RfC yet. I'm trying to steer the conversation into a direction that's productive. Responding to this RfC with "there's a lot of sources that say he's a white supremacist" is the equivalent of saying "there's a lot of sources that refer to him as a man." We're not discussing whether the sources exist or not. JRBx45x (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist is OK. First, leaving aside refs for the moment, is it true? Yes, it is. Look at this tweet after the Superbowl: "For the White race, it's never over". That is not a sign of mere white nationalism; that is crowing about the inherent superiority of the white race. So, he is actually a white supremacist, I think that is established.

So, do we have the refs to back that up? Yes, I think that we have sufficient refs, shown here. I'd rather have Time or the New York Times than somewhat-liberal outlets such as Salon and HuffPost, but Salon and Huffpost are large mainstream publication. They're good enough. And there are others, albeit not so good.

So then finally we want to be careful because of WP:BLP. The guiding spirit of BLP defined by Jimbo is "we are not here to make people sad". Well, I don't think Spencer would mind being described as a white supremacist. It's not harming his reputation. So I wouldn't overly worry about that. So, it's true, pretty clearly. We have IMO sufficient refs. And BLP is not a huge factor here. So Bob's your uncle: white supremacist. Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• What's the difference? According to American leftist anti-racists all forms of white nationalism are white supremacist as well (other racial groups are allowed to have nationalist sentiments because they are less privileged). I don't think it makes any difference which one we choose, probably better to straight choose white supremacist so it fits better with the rest of the narrative without any unnecessary babbling.--Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment This sounds like a very pointed personal opinion. Do you have any references to back up these assertions, or is it just your preferred narrative? Rockypedia (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Both They are separate (though closely related and often overlapping) terms, and there are an ample number of sources that use each term, enough that tallying them would be pointless. The ideological arguments I've seen in threads above to insist on supremacist has no place in an encyclopedia. Hell, why don't we throw out both terms and just call him a Nazi? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, as I understand your argument, it's premised on the contention that one can be a white supremacist while not being a white nationalist. What evidence do you have for this? This is important because I think some of the editors who !voted for "white supremacist," including myself, only did so based on the (perhaps incorrect) premise that white supremacists were strictly a subset of white nationalists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Looking at our own article, the paragraph (in the lede of White nationalism) that WS is a subgroup of WN is sourced to a NY Times article which actually says the exact opposite - "While white nationalism certainly overlaps with white supremacy and racism, many political scientists say it is a distinct phenomenon" and then goes on to discuss expert opinions. There are other political scientists who believe that (again according to our article) "ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy", but there are experts on both sides of the issue. Since the idea of whether or not it is a subgroup is disputed, and by non-WP:FRINGE sources, we shouldn't take it as absolute fact in Wikipedia's voice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There's exactly one political scientist quoted in that article - Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck University - who says that the two are distinctly different. Nowhere in that article is he called an "expert" (I mention this because you called them "expert opinions"). In addition, his opinion of white nationalism seems to differ from the mainstream, as he frames it as going above and beyond white supremacist beliefs, in that it involves not only white supremacist beliefs, but also "white people should maintain both a demographic majority and dominance of the nation’s culture and public life." This would make it seem that being a white nationalist is actually considered more abhorrent than being a white supremacist, but in fact, most of the reason "white nationalist" has been adopted by modern-day white supremacists is that it doesn't sound as offensive - yet. So I don't know how you can justify removing "white supremacist" from the lead. I'd personally be okay with using both, but there seems to be a majority that are against that based on the fact that the two terms overlap so much (which I agree with) and that "white nationalist" is simply a more marketing-friendly euphemism for "white supremacist" (which I also agree with). Rockypedia (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated in my !vote, I don't intend to remove white supremacist from the lede. I believe listing both would be the best compromise here based on the available sources that use both labels. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist Best we aim for the most accurate label we can rather than the broadest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. Everything's been said, ad nauseam, every time this comes up. Reliable sources, self-identification doesn't trump RS, etc etc. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist Cited sources are clear enough. As I've pointed out before, the only parties interested in seeing "white nationalist" as the description are those pushing for a whitewashing of the label "supremacist" with the more publicly "acceptable" term "nationalist". Personally, I think that's a dead end, because if you get the population at large to accept "white nationalist" as your label of choice for white supremacists, it's just going to make "white nationalist" as abhorrent a term as the old one, eventually. I guess at that point they'll push a new sanitized term for white supremacy. In any case, I'm against euphemisms in the lead, and many reliable sources describe Spencer as exactly what he is, despite what his own media-savvy preferred label for himself may be. Rockypedia (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. Status quo is fine; the sources identify him as such. Other labels are already included in lead section appropriately. Neutrality^talk 17:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. The 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' did it for me. Also what's the difference between White Nationalist and White Supremacist? Anybody can be a nationalist, you don't have to be white to say you want England to be England or Indonesia to be Indonesian, etc. But when you add in "White Nationalist" and advocate for one race, that's supremacist language, unless they got that all wrong at my schools. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

off-topic

Also just to point out that whether on not so called ethnic cleansing is peaceful or not, it is still ethnic cleansing, and would then respectfully suggest that this individual is calling for ethnic cleansing, which in itself, is generally prosecuted internationally under the the crime against humanity known as genocide. Therefore it would be more accurate, when dealing with a subject that may be claimed to be "peaceful" by the individual calling for it, it would be better and more precise to remove the peaceful part of the mention of ethinic cleansing, to more accuratly reflect the non bias of wikipedia concerning the use of multiple weasel words when discussing the " systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder and genocidal rape." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing Just to remind you that wikipedia would probably suggest that ethnic cleansing, can not be a peaceful act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.180.212 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist -- that's what the highest-quality sources use, and arguments against the term are very weak. In my own perspective: "whites" are not a nation and so the term itself is incoherent. But my own view on the matter can be disregarded just as much as any other editor's view can be disregarded. What matters is what the best sources use. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White nationalist -- because that's what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are currently calling him. 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) 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--and I think it risks making Wikipedia appear biased. Crillfish (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist — per above. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White nationalist — See below:

definitions of white supremacy

Wikipedia definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy): "White supremacy or white supremacism is 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." Merriam-Webster definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist): "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races" Dictionary.com definition (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy): "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society. OxfordDictionaries.com definition (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white_supremacist): "An advocate or supporter of the doctrine that white people are superior to other peoples, and should therefore have greater power, authority, or status."

Note that according to these sources (including Wikipedia itself), what makes a white supremacist depends on two factors:

• A belief in the superiority of whites over other racial groups, and
• A belief that whites have a right to control other racial groups due to real or perceived superior qualities

Spencer has repeatedly stated in several interviews that he does not want to rule over other races for any reason, as below:

statements by Spencer

Interview with Roland Martin on TV One uploaded on November 22, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5BQS79H7g starting at 10:36): Roland Martin: So, are you a white supremacist? Richard Spencer: No, I'm not a white supremacist, absolutely. White supremacy means that a white person would want to rule over other people. Martin: So you don't want to rule over other people? Spencer: I absolutely do not. We've had white supremacy in our past, whether you think of imperialism, slavery, colonialism - that's been a disaster. So no, I don't want to go to back to that. Interview with Al Jazeera uploaded on December 9, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni_6sISHnqQ starting at 0:07): Kristen Saloomey: Do you object to being called a "white supremacist"? Richard Spencer: I object to being called a white supremacist, because it's simply not true. A white supremacist would want to lord over other races, or control other races and so on. I am not a white supremacist, I do object to that. Not only is it a slur word but it's not accurate. Saloomey: But you do think that white culture should be supreme in the United States. Spencer: I think that the United States was defined by Anglo-Protestants - certainly at the beginning - but particularly after the Civil War it was defined by this big European family, so America is a white country, in terms of its rooted, historical identity. Now, things can change - in what direction are we headed? I think we're headed towards, obviously a multiracial America, a multicultural America, probably a fragmenting America, probably something that's going to be totally unrecognizable, for an American in the 20th century or 19th century. That's where we're headed! I think that obviously history can change course, if people are dedicated enough, and their ideas are powerful enough. So, yes, America is historically, undoubtedly, a white country, we're headed in a very different direction. Saloomey: But about the term "neo-Nazi"? Spencer: Well no, we're not neo-Nazis, we're not the KKK, we're not any of that stuff. Interview by independent reporter James Allsup uploaded on Feb 1, 2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n3dhOKntj4 starting at ): James Allsup: So, talking about race, and talking about white identity in those terms, will also get you labelled as a white supremacist. Now, you've rejected that term, I think that it's pretty clear the differences between being a white supremacist and being someone who talks about white identity, but could you just quickly go over the difference between white supremacy, identitarianism and race realism? Spencer: Sure, and that's a very interesting way of thinking about it. 'White supremacist' is a lot like 'racist' in the sense that it's not a real word, it's just thrown out there. But I would say that 'white supremacist' might have more of an objective validity in the sense that 'white supremacist' is like a slave owner, or someone who wants to lord over other races. There's been a tremendous amount of white supremacy in American history, I won't deny that. There's been a tremendous amount of white supremacy in world history! That is not the future, the future is not owning African slaves or owning any kind of slaves. So no, I am not a white supremacist in that sense.

These comments sound more like the talk of a white nationalist rather than a supremacist. Furthermore, supposing that Spencer is a white supremacist because so many media outlets say so is fallacious as it relies on the presumption that every outlet which has reported Spencer as such has no lack of journalistic integrity. After all the outlets which are reporting him as such do not cite any of these interview segments either out of happenstance, neutral neglect or deliberate omission - the latter can definitely go for tabloid outlets (if there is one that suggests otherwise please link it to me in this thread). If anything the article should acknowledge that media outlets are simply referring to him as one to inert confusion. Therefore I believe that in lieu of this evidence calling Spencer a 'white supremacist' is false, and the term 'white nationalist' exclusively is most fitting. It just doesn't match up with the definitions or the facts. Also my apologies with the excessive bolding, working with indents in such a small place with so much information isn't easy. Should I make it collapsible? Electrosharkskin (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Thanks to DrFleischman for the edit. Electrosharkskin (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Virtually no reliable sources are currently calling Spencer a "white supremacist" - the wiki lede is misleading

He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." 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) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017)

Affirmatively stating in the lede sentence that he is a "white supremacist" doesn't seem supported by a majority of current reliable sources. Crillfish (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an RfC going on above about this very topic. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I see you already registered a view on that. So why did you create yet another discussion on this? clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's pointless? Most people on this page seem to have a personal beef with Spencer and want to make sure he's called a 'supremacist' because they don't like him. This isn't how an encyclopedic entry should be written, frankly. There shouldn't be a 'vote' over whether to keep an erroneous descriptor that the vast majority of current reliable sources aren't using. This is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia entry, not a place to hash out your beef with the alt-right. Crillfish (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You were asked "why did you create yet another discussion on this?" and you answered "Because it's pointless?"

I don't even know what that means. What's pointless? And when you explain what you think is pointless, how does that explain why you started a second discussion? To use your own words, this isn't how a measured, intelligent discussion should be written. It feels more like a 4chan post. Is your goal is to see Spencer portrayed in a more favorable light? Then state that. Nobody gets very far with nebulous forum-type rants here. Rockypedia (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

rants? do you have any response to the fact that the vast majority of current reliable sources are not calling him a "white supremacist"? see above. The Wiki entry lede smacks of bias. Crillfish (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any answer to the three questions I posed above? Rockypedia (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RfCs are not votes (WP:NOTAVOTE). Moving this discussion to be a subsection of the RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 25 February 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.

Playing into his hand

I think this guy is a scumbag, but by starting this article calling him a While supremacist--in the very first dang line, then locking the article, you are validating the what they claim about "shitlibs" (their word, not mine)!

Sure, somewhere in the article say, "many mainstream news organizations call Spencer a white supremacist (with citations)". Great, you look reasonably balanced. But what you are doing now makes you look every bit as extreme as him!

Stop being so stupid, stop giving these people more ammo, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.182.172 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What's liberal, imbalanced, extreme, or otherwise wrong with calling Spencer a white supremacist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, that it's completely misleading and biased? Neither the New York Times and Washington Post currently refer to Spencer this way. He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." 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) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

indeed. wikipedia simply isn't working properly, when the topic is an unpopular person or opinion. the only way to fix it would be to make the public unable to edit these articles and leave it to a team of professionals. i doubt that is happening though, and consequently wikipedia will just continue to fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.220.167 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

that Spencer's lede descriptor as a 'supremacist' is based on a bunch of wikipedia editors' desire to label him that way, rather than because it's based on a majority of current reliable sources. See above. This isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work. Crillfish (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How is wikipedia supposed to work, exactly? Rockypedia (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not base article ledes of controversial figures on "votes" of anonymous editors with an agenda? As has been demonstrated throughout this page, far more current, reliable sources are calling Spencer a "nationalist" instead of a "supremacist." In fact, Wikipedia is probably the only current "reputable" resource I've seen still calling him a "white supremacist." I've been unable to find much of anything in the way of current MSM reliable sources referring to him this way anymore. Only Wikipedia, which lists dated articles from 2014 and 2015 to justify it. This "process" is broken because it's controlled by people who aren't being objective. Crillfish (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction request.

The article falsely calls Spencer a white supremacist. He is a white nationalist not supremacist. This label was put on him by fake news CNN and Jewish forward etc. More details: http://sakibarifin.blogspot.com/2017/02/clickbait-media-deception-media-falsely.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This issue has already been extensively hashed out, and the consensus is that Spencer should be described as a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

the idea that this has been "hashed out" is ridiculous. You clearly have a personal beef with Spencer and want to make sure he's called a "white supremacist" because you don't like him. Virtually no reliable sources are currently calling Spencer a "white supremacist," which renders the lede misleading. He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." 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/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.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) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You've made it quite clear across four different discussions, and there is no point in repeating it over and over and over again. In fact it is getting quite disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair Dr. Fleischman, that implies most people even return to the discussion page to begin with, let alone change their vote simply out of principle. After all, no organic consensus is gonna be reached on this matter because we can't even sort the people who genuinely care about the issue vs. people who have beef against Spencer's politics. I mean come on, the best the WS side can say is "the media said it's true so it must be" and other non-arguments, and like they're gonna go back and contest it because right now their vote is as good as gold whether or not they've laid out a proper argument. It's most likely going to stay unresolved until someone goes ahead and corrects it themselves and someone reverses the edit because they're still waiting on a consensus that will virtually never come. Electrosharkskin (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"The media said it's true so it must be" is hardly a non-argument--it's Wikipedia policy. If you want to change that policy, you can start a new discussion at WP:VPP, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See above, most current reliable sources AREN'T calling him a 'white supremacist.' So the lede ***isn't even consistent with Wikipedia policy as you define it.*** Crillfish (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

For the whateverth time, you've made your point, and consensus is against you. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This page has been overrun with anonymous editors with an agenda. Sad to see. People like you are undermining the objectivity of the wikipedia project. Crillfish (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a very ironic statement coming from an anonymous editor with an agenda. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, me and those right wingers at the New York Times and Washington Post!! Crillfish (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't quote unsubstantiated claims by any website if I'm after reliability, but fair enough. Like the outcome will change at all. Electrosharkskin (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring report

I have submitted an edit warring report against Crillfish over content related to the recently closed RfC regarding the description of Spencer as a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN blocked him for 48 hours, hopefully that will put a stop to it. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist and antisemite?

Should we append the first sentence of the article with antisemite? Most of the sources calling him a white supremacist also state his antisemitic views as pretty central to his character. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide specific sources? I looked through all of the ones we're citing to call him a white supremacist and I didn't find any that described him as anti-semitic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Stronger or weaker

The question of if punching nazis makes their ideas stronger or weaker remains controversial. Benjamin (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That might be true, but we can't add it to our article without citing a source that says that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/87Nazis/

Benjamin (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyQiwlAHlc

How should this information be incorporated into the article? @Fyddlestix:

Benjamin (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's shouldn't. The article is about spencer, a discussion about whether or not "punching neo Nazis makes them weaker or stonger" is off topic and does not belong in the article at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there another more appropriate article? The video specifically talks about Spencer. Benjamin (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"refused to denounce Adolf Hitler"

The lead has included the (sourced) sentence, "Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler" for quite some time now. Recently an editor attempted to qualify that statement with "despite calling some of his actions 'despicable.'" As the source quite clearly points out, Spencer at no time states which actions he found despicable, and the way this addition was worded was designed to mitigate the impact of Spencer refusing to denounce Hitler. I find that to be in violation WP:NPOV, and I removed it, and provided that quote, plus the full context, in the body of the article, where it had not existed before. Rockypedia (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"White Supremacist Label -- Spencer is an Identarian"

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.

---

Hi, clearly its inaccurate to label a person with white supremacist views if that persons states they're not. Spencer is an "identarian" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement and has stated as much very publicly on many occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed; in short, there is a clear consensus that reliable sources describe him and his views as white supremacist. We note that he disagrees, but we base our articles on what reliable sources say, not what someone proclaims themselves to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I have reliable sources that say the Pope is a Buddist, can you update his Wikipedia page? *eye roll* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to play at Wikipedia, then you have to play by its rules. Here is Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So in effect youre saying thet Richard Spencer is not a reliable source to use in order to assertain Richard Spencers political beliefs? Excuse me if I consider your opinion worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It may surprise you, but not everyone tells the truth about their motives and beliefs. And yes, if you had several sources which met our criteria saying the Pope was a Buddhist, they cold probably be used. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

White supremacists are famous for eschewing that label (example). That doesn't make them any less white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist" ("White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House."), we should go with the NPOV term "white nationalist". Using "supremacist" is debatable, since he apparently claims not to be so. It looks like we can all agree on "nationalist", so it may be a better choice. Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to make clear in the article that "white" is a meaningless term? I'm concerned that we may be unwittingly using the word performatively in the voice of Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the RfC we had recently on this issue, we'll stick with "white supremacist" for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall we have a second RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I should note that the "Views" subsection says, "In a 2016 interview for Time magazine, Spencer said he rejected white supremacy and the slavery of nonwhites, preferring to establish America as a white ethnostate.". We have to be consistent here. I can't check the Time reference however, because it's not free.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this inconsistent? It points out that he disputes the label in the first paragraph of the article. We've already been over this, and another RFC would be disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

He calls himself a "white nationalist" and so does The New York Times: "White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House.".Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and? Again, we're already been over this. He is both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. Both are accurate, but the latter is (slightly) more specific. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How do we know if he denies it? I think it is safer to go by reliable third-party sources and say, "white nationalist". It is already a strange term, but at least everyone appears to agree. We can then have a subsection in the body of the text about both phrases having been used, but the first sentence of the lede should be as NPOV as possible.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's clearly a White separatist, which can be a form of white supremacy. The ethno-state declaration is seen in an article from the Washington Post republished in another newspaper.[7]

By whom? Black separatists, or white separatists, want to live separately because they think they look different from us. It is ridiculous but does not necessarily mean that they think they are superior to us. Are there reliable third-party sources calling Spencer a "white separatist"? I think that may be even more NPOV and accurate than "white nationalist" given his insistence on a so-called ethno-state.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 2 April 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.

Active arbitration remedies

I've put this article under a 1RR restriction, which means you are only allowed one revert per 24 hours. Please read the talk header carefully. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

To add, as there was a RFC on "White Supremacist vs White Nationalist" any attempts to change the term without getting consensus beforehand may be reverted and a block may ensue. Pinging Bishonen to make sure she's okay with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Very good. I hope everybody takes your topnote[8] to heart. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

Punch

Is the punch on the day of Trump's inauguration really significant?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

#Nazi was trending on Twitter the night it happened with over 100k tweets with Spencer as the subject (saw it myself, no ref), that's a lot of tweets (in case you didn't know), see RichardSpencer Nazi on Twitter for more sources, info. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw it on TV here in Australia. Which is why I came to this page, to find out who he is. Yes, it's newsworthy and tweetable, but is it significant enough to be mentioned here?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The punch was needlessly mentioned twice, once each in two different sections of the article. I removed both mentions. The punch does not belong in a section on "controversies", because there is no controversy associated with it. No one is disputing that it happened, and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted. Nor does it belong in a section on Spencer's career, as the fact that he was assaulted does not form part of his career. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted" - there sort of is. See this New York Times article: Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose one can make a case for including the information somewhere in the article on that basis. One mention is quite enough, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not so sure myself whether this is really WP:DUE, but if it is included (I'll let others decide), one mention is enough for sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be the most important reason that he is famous, but that would make him a one-hit wonder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

("One-hit wonder", that's good.) I don't think the "controversy" section is ideal, because if we include free-speech advocates, "some commentators welcoming the attack and others deploring it" applies to almost everything he's done. This is why WP:CSECTIONs rarely work well. If we changed that section title to "activities" almost nothing would be different. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Combine "Career" and "Controversy" into "Activities"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. How does this look? Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to eliminate the subsections because they don't fit in chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On another issue, what is the source for it being an impromptu interview and for the fact that several masked men came up? I can only see one.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can see it's an impromptu interview, but feel free to change "impromptu interview" to "interview" if you actually consider the point important. Changed multiple men to one man. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure what was being conveyed by "impromptu"... Here is a source from the news service that was interviewing him at the time, if anyone's interested:[9] He was actually punched twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Man or person

Relating to the same topic, I have reverted twice the change from "man" to "person" in describing the attacker. The sources clearly say man. The ABC account based on eyewitness Zoe Daniel also says man.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Andral, please respect the BRD process and stop reverting. As you can see, Jack Upland initiated discussing on this issue two months ago and you continue to low-level edit war. This is disruptive even if you haven't violated the 3-revert bright-line rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wording

I think this edit by Rockypedia, changing "removed from" back to "kicked out", is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia does not have to use "verbiage straight from the source". Rather, it should use appropriate language. "Kicked out" is a vulgar, slang expression, that would never be used in a respectable encyclopedia. "Removed from" conveys the same meaning in suitable language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed from seems better, especially for non-native speakers/readers who are unfamiliar with idioms like "kicked out". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from anything else, we do need to be accurate. Was Spencer literally kicked out of the conference? That might be the only case in which it would be appropriate to use such language, and even then we would have to make it clear that the expression was meant literally, and not in its colloquial sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer removed from, since it's more encyclopedic in tone. There is no requirement to parrot the same language as the source, when the meaning is not in doubt and there's more than one way to convey the same thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Fleischman. There is nothing to stop you from simply reinstating my edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Removed from sounds far more professional for an encyclopedia, assuming that there was no actual kicking going on (which seems to be the case). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleansing

Can be cited from here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.9 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a literal objective lie. Source of it is this quote, which is not advocating ethnic cleansing, but describing a historical event.

"Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully."

http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/blog/facing-the-future-as-a-minority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herewardwakes (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2017 Auburn Riot

Trivia? KMF (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy merge within the "public speaking" subsection. I added a "speedy deletion" tag in good faith, but a speedy merge could work too.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know about trivia or speedy, but I would support a merge. That page is really about Spencer and Auburn students' reactions to him speaking there. It's probably a flash in the pan, and our article here can certainly accommodate the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Don't merge, just come up with a few original sentences. At the end of the day this was an extremely minor event. "racist gives speech, college kids don't like it" is pretty routine stuff. The article on the nonexistent riot that was written before the supposed riot even happened is going to be deleted. That much is clear from the AFD, so any "official" merge is more or less out the window. I would suggest using the sources already present in that article, which detail the lead-up to it and the legal challenges to just come up with a sentence or two noting the legal challenges, which are the only thing remotely notable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We might want to use this article as an RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Spencer denies calling for peaceful ethnic cleansing.

Primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1JJA6UiEio&t=41m10s (timestamp if your browser doesn't take you there 0h41m10s) - Q&A in Auburn, Alabama speech, 18 April 2017. The mic on the audience side was terrible, but I'll try to quote:

Audience member (wearing light pink): So, on your site you've stated that you do agree that blacks have been oppressed over the course of history ...

Spencer: Yes.

Audience member: ... You also said that whites were [involved?] in slavery and [inaudible] Indian reservations.

Spencer: Putting them on reservations was probably the nicest thing we ever did.

Audience member: Okay, my next point. You've also called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing". "Peaceful".

Spencer: I have actually not called for that, to be...

Audience member: [inaudible]

Spencer: No, I haven't.

Audience member: On your website. (continues while Spencer talks, inaudible)

Spencer: No, I used the term "peaceful ethnic cleansing" actually in a speech, and I was describing the Paris Peace Conference of 1919

Audience member: ... [peace?]fully ethnically cleansed.

Spencer: Well, let me answer that and you can ask your next one. I did not call for ethnic cleansing. I was describing the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which is actually an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing. After the First World War, this terrible event, a brothers' war that ultimately destroyed our civilization, far more than World War 2, to be honest, there was a nation-building experiment that took place in Paris in 1919. They knew old nations were reborn, Poland being an example, a state that did not exist, but a nation that's a people that did exist; new nations like Yoguslavia were created out of [?] [in a way?] - that was an example of nationbuilding, and yes, that was an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing. People were defined by nationality, and ethnicity, and religion, and yes, the map was redrawn. What happened in the Soviet Union's also an example of that. There was actually a kind of nationbuilding experiment where they gave peoples a national poem or something like that. Ukraine is an example of, you know, a synthetic nation, to be honest.

Audience member: So, on your alt-right website, you wrote an essay titled "Is black genocide right?" and it said, and I quote [copied from archive], "Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, 'Does human civilization actually need the Black race?' 'Is Black genocide right?' and, if it is, 'What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?'" So, my last question, is how you can stand up there and claim that it's easier to be black because of a stronger sense of ethnic identity, in a room full of African-American peers, African-American police officers standing out there protecting you, when you have things like that written [on your blog?] [audience starts applauding].

Spencer: That, that piece was not actually at altright.com, that was on alternativeright.com, and that piece was written by Colin Liddell who was making a rhetorical point that, I don't know what to say, take it up with him. It's not...

Richard Spencer seems to disown this essay, which was written by a different author, and the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" claim published widely by SPLC. The essay does not mention "peaceful ethnic cleansing" either. All that I can find of that claim is out-of-context quotes and quotes thereof. So I suggest editing the article in a way that reflects what the sources say about its subject (x source says he supports peaceful ethnic cleansing, y source says he disowned it in 2017), as soon as we can find non-primary sources supporting the fact that Spencer has now disowned this claim. This is kind of a WP:BLP (WP:GRAPEVINE) issue now. Otherwise, I would like to see sources quoting him in-context where he did indeed make this claim. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We use secondary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I recognised that in my final paragraph. I'm putting it here so that people interested in contributing to this article have a way to do that if they find a secondary source. I haven't found one yet, but since the speech is so new, we can expect secondary sources to come out later. Another reason I put it here, again in my final paragraph, I would like to see an in-context quote from Spencer about his alleged advocacy of "peaceful" genocide. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added even if the sourcing were better. Various reliable sources have said that he called for peaceful ethnic cleansing. The fact that he later denied saying it is hardly relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: After wading through a speech he gave four years ago cited by SPLC and The Daily Beast, I now agree that he at the time supported the idea (watch from 20m00s onwards if you really want to). He doesn't propose a single solution for the North American white ethnostate he advocates, but he does talk about the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" as one of the possible example solutions which he says is one of many examples where "liberals" were not in favour of multiculturalism or "race mixing". He puts this specifically in the context of his movement by saying "it can be done" and "for this to be done, we need our cause". That is the only in-context quote that is cited in any of the sources.

On to reliability. Our sources are: a magazine website (The Atlantic) an editorial page (The Daily Beast), and the SPLC which is basically a political advocacy group similar to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (it just for advocates for a different political cause). I don't know the reputation of the SPLC (I am outside the US), but I usually do not rely on pressure groups, political parties, or political advocacy groups to inform an article on the subject that group has interests in advocating or opposing, apart from saying "x source says this". For the other two sources, per WP:RS it is important to look at a source's editorial policy in order to judge reliability.

I think it is important to accurately represent the views of the subject (a living person), even if they change; and also represent major changes in their political ideology. I think it's especially important if they are a political activist. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly just the SPLC and the Daily Beast that reported that quote, and you're being disingenuous by setting up that straw man to make it seem like there's no good sources. CNN, The Atlantic , the Telegraph, NBC News... the list goes on, as I'm sure you know. The fact that Spencer realized later that the phrase isn't good for his efforts to make white supremacy more mainstream isn't a good enough reason to remove it from his Wikipedia page, sorry. If reliable secondary sources eventually report that Spencer has changed his mind and said "I once called for peaceful ethnic cleansing but now I think that's a bad idea", THAT would be an example of something that should then be included in the same paragraph. Until that happens, the sources are clear. Rockypedia (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, plus, SPLC is a reliable source despite being having an advocacy component since it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy--as reflected in by the many, many citations by mainstream, reliable news outlets (this is a case in point), as well as various discussions throughout Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I never said that I want it removed from this page. I don't want that, so I agree with you. I keep saying that I want the page to represent the changes in his views. What I have in mind is "In 2013, Spencer called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' to halt the 'deconstruction' [...]. In 2017, he denied calling for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing'." Let the reader make up their own mind about this guy's lack of integrity, to put it that way. My intention with arguing about reliable sources was not to use it to forward my argument to represent the changes in his views (you can see that the page already uses "SPLC says he called for..."). DrFleischman first brought up the reliability of sources, so I used the sources this article has. If there are more reliable sources out there, this article should definitely use them instead, per WP:VERIFY. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine in theory, and as I said, if you have a reliable secondary source that says "In 2017, he denied calling for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing'" or something to that effect, then great, add it. Until then, you're interpreting a very unclear snippet of conversation yourself, and I personally believe that would be WP:OR. Other editors may disagree and I invite them to weigh in. Rockypedia (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using the term "disown" in this discussion since it's leading to some confusion. The primary sources make clear that Spencer has explicitly denied having called for peaceful ethnic cleansing. That should not be included since Spencer isn't a reliable source, and we have various reliable sources saying that he did in fact call for peaceful ethnic cleansing. We seem to be in agreement on that. *** The second question though, which it seems BB is more focused on, is whether we can say that Spencer has changed his views on peaceful ethnic cleansing. On that question my position is no. In my reading, neither the primary sources nor the secondary sources say he has changed his views on the subject. Denying that you said something (or believed something) is not the same as recanting it (taking it back). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at myself; again you are more cogent than I am. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

User:Nomoskedasticity: You removed this paragraph, which says Spencer disinvited a homophobe from one of his events, with WP:TOPIC as a justification. I don't think it's off topic--why do you think it is?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

...which says Spencer disinvited a homophobe from one of his events No, it doesn't. It says someone "was reportedly disinvited from an NPI event", which is two layers of weasel-wording (passive voice and "reportedly") that doesn't even mention Spencer, the actual topic of this article. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes but the NPI is run by Spencer. Who else would disinvite the speaker? We could restore the content and rephrase it to avoid WP:WEASEL. The Southern Poverty Law Center says, "Richard Spencer, president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute who is considered one of the founders of the Alt Right movement, has also made overtures toward LGBT people, explicitly barring homophobes from the organization’s annual conference in 2015. Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN) was reportedly disinvited from the event for his anti-gay views, while Jack Donovan, an openly gay Alt-Right author, was a key speaker.". It's bad writing for, Spencer disinvited him. I guess there is a problem with "reportedly", but that's really an issue with the SPLC, which shouldn't be a reliable source (guilt by association, rumours, etc.) To be safe, we could add, "Spencer has barred homophobes from his conferences."Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The subsection currently gives the impression that Spencer is anti-gay, as it only mentions his opposition to same-sex marriage. Yet RS suggest otherwise. I think we need to restore the aforementioned information (or the trimmed suggestion above) to avoid falling prey to undue weight and misleading content.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tough one. I can certainly see Zigzag's point, but I favor removal of the paragraph. Opposing same-sex marriage isn't necessarily homophobic, and we shouldn't be ascribing decisions made by NPI to Spencer without verification. If there are reliable sources saying that Spencer made these decisions, then we should certainly include them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr, we could fix this quickly, just add "Spencer has barred homophobes from his conferences." and reference it with the SPLC link. Or, are you suggesting removing the entire "sexual orientation" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right - I missed that one. But not conferences plural, just the 2015 conference. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, problem solved. Glad to see we could fix this quickly this time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lies

In a 2016 interview for Time magazine, Spencer said he rejected white supremacy and the slavery of nonwhites, preferring to establish America as a white ethnostate.[48]

This passage is in the actual article, yet the very same article still calls him a white supremacist.

White nationalism =/= White supremacy.

Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and there is a clear consensus to describe Spencer as a white supremacist. Read this to understand why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Spencer's views on Islam

In reply to Drmies, no, it is not "editorializing" to mention what Spencer said about Islam in an interview, as you wrongly suggested here. What would actually be editorializing would be adding something to the article about how Spencer's comments were right or wrong, brave truth-telling or evil "Islamophobia" - in other words, inserting one's own personal opinions. I did nothing like that - I simply restored some useful content that gives readers a better idea of Spencer's views. In response to your comment "it is not up to you to select what's noteworthy and what isnt", I would simply reply that editors have to use their own judgment about what content is appropriate to articles - otherwise it is impossible to write an encyclopedia. WP:NOTE is not at issue here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FKC in this scenario. It's right in WP:OR. Although secondary sources are preferable, as a community we frequently cite primary sources when secondary sources aren't available. Yes, sometimes that means exercising some editorial judgment to decide what's sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion and what isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• DrFleischman, that particular exercise of editorial judgment is precisely what editorializing is all about. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you were editorializing since you restored the edit and thus tacitly enforced the choice made to include this bit of content but not another. DrF, "we frequently cite"--maybe, but in this case there was nothing to begin with: this was the only bit of information making up this section. <Redacted per WP:BLPTALK> Drmies (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

<Redacted per WP:BLPTALK>

Spencer's opinion on Islam matters for the obvious, common-sense reason: Islam is an important force in the world today and it influences politics. Since Spencer is known for his political views and actions, his opinions on a politically important subject like Islam clearly are relevant. There's no reason to repeat everything he ever said on the topic, but a few representative quotations or comments are quite appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You can repeat that as often as you like, but it remains your opinion that his opinions on Islam are important to note given...the state of the world? That would be your take on the state of the world, then. Look, you want to avoid this kind of conflict? Find secondary sources--they are the basis of an encyclopedia. Also, are you saying that stuff about BLP applicability to remind yourself? Because I assure you I am well aware of the policy and where it applies. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Spencer's view of Islam is relevant, and it seems also the opinion of one other person is that Spencer's view of Islam is relevant. So far no one is supporting your opinion that Spencer's view of Islam is irrelevant. Therefore, you should be reverted (or you should self-revert). As for BLP, I frankly cannot be bothered trying to do something about your violations of the policy just now, but if you keep on violating it, over and over, then maybe I would feel differently - or someone else might take action. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your sample size of 3 people is not sufficient for determining whether or not this material should be included. If you really want to see what editors-at-large think, request an RfC. They're very easy to set up. For the record, I haven't formed an opinion on this particular bit, but if you start an RfC I'll certainly research it more deeply and comment. Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• In response to FKC, I am not going to revert Drmies right now, because I believe in consensus-building over edit warring. I can't help but think that there is more heat than light in the interaction between the two of you at this point. Maybe you can continue your discussion to user talk, and others can weigh in on whether this content should stay or go? Another way forward would be for Drmies to acknowledge that two experienced editors have made reasonable policy-based arguments and to graciously accept our preferred (longstanding) version until consensus swings the other way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Haha, Dr. F., no, I'm not going to take that poison pill, no matter how kindly you offer that to me. :) I just noticed that FreeKnowledgeCreater thinks that this guy's opinion of Islam is relevant and that thus it should be included--well, that's editorializing. Editorial judgment, in my opinion, is deciding what verified content should be in and what should be out, but here we're still dealing with what is essentially a primary source. And what is that source, anyway? Turns out it's an interview with a non-notable outfit, published on the website of a radio station owned by a neo-nazi outfit (sorry, "white nationalist", haha). So in essence, what you are allowing is for some person to get hisself interviewed by the PR agency for persons of that ilk, and accept that as a license to insert this material, thereby allowing said material to be disseminated even further--besides adding a link to Washington Summit Publishers, a partisan organization. And did y'all notice that he says "I am also the founder and Editor of Radix Journal," and thus this is basically his own website?

    It is my judgment that, given these intricacies, adding this content is little more than resume padding and linkspamming. And you may say that the content of the edit isn't positive toward the subject, but you know as well as I do that people with such opinions attract people with similar opinions, and that thus there is no such thing as bad publicity for them. Surely Wikipedia doesn't want to help them in their ambitions. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't make these sorts of editorial decisions based on what the subject would want or not want included, and honestly I don't think you should either. I make it based on what I think editors would find important. Personally, I think a leading white supremacist's views on Islam are inherently quite noteworthy, especially in the current political climate in which there seems to be a nexus of bigotry on the far right among racists, xenophobes, and Islamophobes. It is of tremendous importance to understand the extent to which those interests overlap. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, you keep saying the same thing and making the same mistake. I am not making an editorial decision: I am merely excluding a bunch of nonsense that boy spouted on his own website, nonsense that lacks secondary sourcing. So now you're arguing it wasn't your preference for content but rather what you think our readers want to read...but that's the same thing, from an encyclopedic point of view. How about you let the reader use Google when they want to find stuff that lacks secondary sourcing? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I was saying that I was making an editorial decision (not you) , and I think it was an appropriate one that is neither forbidden nor discouraged by any policy or guideline. The only relevant rule I can find is WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We're not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

People like Spencer say a lot of crazy things, and Radix is his own outfit/mouthpiece. There's no reason to include this unless it's covered by an independent, reliable source. To say otherwise is to invite massive coatracking and/or invite long lists of all his crazy thoughts and positions being listed here. We should stick to what RS say is noteworthy. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Fyddlestix and Drmies. If his opinion on this receives outside coverage that's a different story, but using his own journal is far from secondary sourcing. Parabolist (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you're aware - secondary sourcing isn't required. Primary sourcing isn't preferred, but it's explicitly allowed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And if this was pertinent information about Spencer himself, it'd be great! But as is, unless Spencer's opinions on Islam are also considered newsworthy by secondary sources, they don't really belong on his biography. Parabolist (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Views on abortion

I suggest adding a subsection, "Views on abortion," based on:

• Wood, Graeme (June 2017). "His Kampf". The Atlantic. Retrieved May 16, 2017. He doesn't mind gay marriage, and he favors legal access to abortion—partly to reduce the number of blacks and Hispanics. "Smart people are not using abortion as birth control … It is the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics who use abortion as birth control," he said recently on AltRight.com's YouTube channel. "This can be something that can be a great boon for our people, our race."

This passage, by the way, makes it sound like he is indeed a "supremacist." So it seems quite important to add this info. It could end the lack of consensus over supremacist v. nationalist once and for all (for example, it made me change my mind--I no longer think he may be "just" a nationalist). Thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems like it's worth brief a sentence or two based on that source. Like many things he says, this is a fringe perspective which isn't supported by reality, and it would be worth considering how to mention this without subtly validating it. Even looking past the obscene and obvious racism of the statement, it's utterly unscientific, as "abortion as birth control" in that context is a broad qualifier which could include or exclude whatever is convenient. Fertility and intelligence explains that abortion might be slightly more common among high IQ people, also. This wouldn't belong in this article, but it's not something to be ignored, either, so...

The connection to nationalism vs supremacism is a very interesting one that didn't occur to me. Not sure how/if we should directly use it for that point, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course his ideas are wrong. Based on the premise that he apparently believes in the meaningless construct of "whiteness" (sic), we shouldn't have to repeat that. My point is that 1) He supports abortion, which is new information, and not a given (most right-wingers do not). 2) He apparently supports a eugenicist use of abortion, which proves his belief in so-called white supremacy if I am reading this correctly? In other words, I don't necessarily believe The New York Times if they call him a "white supremacist" without giving us specific examples, but if he supports aborting blacks and not whites, that is the very definition of that label, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so how do we present this as due weight without validating it? Should we just include the quote and let it speak for itself? I don't particularly like giving him a platform without context. Should this be directly connected to supremacism, or is that WP:SYNTH? I'm asking, not being rhetorical. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we could add a subsection, "Views on abortion," and write, "He supports abortion, especially for blacks and Hispanics." The problem is what you call "validation"--do you think some people might read this and not see how weird/wrong that is? How do we contextualize it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That wording works. Since this was presented as being about race, it could be included in that subsection instead of its own, but either way works for me. If we explain his views on abortion in any more detail, we should explain that it's based on false statistical information. It's also wrong in many other ways, of course. Unfortunately I do think some will read it without understanding how wrong it is, but I don't know the solution. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Does he bring everything back to so-called "race" though? (I have to use the phrase "so-called" because again I think it's a meaningless construct; we're all the same.) Right now the article makes it sound like he's just some rich kid trolling the left. If he wants to use abortion to reduce the number of blacks and Hispanics, that's no longer trolling, but an actual extreme policy position. Another reason to include this info. So how do we add this content? Do others (like User:DrFleischman for example) have any views?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's certainly noteworthy. I'd support a sentence at the end of the "Race" subsection saying, "Spencer supports legal access to abortion, in part because he believes it would reduce the number of black and Hispanic people, which he says would be a 'great boon' to white people." It would be overkill and awkward reading to put this in a separate one-sentence "Abortion" subsection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Could we please use 'claims' instead of 'says'? "Says" suggests he speaks for so-called white people, which is untrue.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm rarely, rarely a fan of "claims" over "says," and this is no exception. Whether reducing the number of minorities would be a "great boon" to white people is squarely a matter of personal opinion, an opinion to which he is entitled. I only support "claims" in cases in which dubious factual allegations are made. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Would you like to add the content please? By the way, we are already using the same RS for his mother's background (with a direct quote).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman: I'm confused. I thought you'd agreed to use "claims" but you ended up writing "says." Did you change your mind please?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood. I was explaining why I prefer "says" to "claims." Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Either would be fine by me, but if a tiebreaker would be helpful... "Says" would be my choice here. Since it's already presented as being his opinion of a hypothetical future outcome, there isn't really a 'claim' being made. This vagueness is part of a recurring pattern with Spencer and many others in the alt-right. He is basically admitting in the Atlantic source that he does this to avoiding having to defend any details of his positions: "He suggested that any concept of identity could be knocked down if overanalyzed, and overanalysis would only lead to inaction." Anything he doesn't agree with can be brushed off as overanalysis, but this falls apart when those pesky details enter the picture. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually think the current wording slightly misrepresents what he said, and more of the actual quote would be more accurate than what is currently there - and with that, the word "claim" would be more appropriate - here's my suggestion:

Spencer supports legal access to abortion, in part because he claims "it is the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics who use abortion as birth control," and that could be a "great boon" to white people.

The first quote from him is clearly a dubious factual allegation, so I think "claim" is justified under WP:CLAIM. Rockypedia (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gym

Bryan C. W. removed a sentence about Spencer losing his gym membership, describing it as "unnecessary." Just looking at the content it seems petty; however it's getting a surprising amount of press coverage. I lean slightly toward inclusion. Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I found it to be pretty arbitrary initially - turns out you're right, DrFleischman, it is getting its 'fair' amount of coverage in media. That being said, I wouldn't quite call him losing his gym membership an encyclopedic topic. How would it help anyone in their knowledge of Mr. Spencer? While it is indeed a pretty covered incident, I don't believe it has a place on Wikipedia, at least not necessarily here. Cheers nonetheless! Bryan C. W. (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Roman Salute vs Nazi Salute

Shouldn't it be referred to as the Roman salute in the article? That's what the members of the Alt-right all refer to it as from the videos I've seen.68.149.54.222 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Roman salute is a catchall name, we don't need to use the word they use - it all means the same thing. There's no evidence that the Romans actually used it. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking we go with what the reliable sources say, and in this case, both of the cited sources use "Nazi salute." As our article Nazi salute and Roman salute indicate, these are actually different salutes. It really doesn't matter what alt-righters call it; it was verifiably a Nazi salute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And that of course is right. What we say on the article needs to reflect our sources, not what those who use it would like to call it. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but I'd just like to point out that a lot of media outlets have drubbed objectivity when it comes to trump or anything tangentially connected to him. Richard spencer is regularly called a white supremacist when he's really a white nationalist. You can criticize his brand of politics (and I do), but I think in some cases a personal disliking of these people and the things they say have coloured the perspective of the journalists that report on them. in any case, whether the ancient romans used the salute or not, Hitler's copied it from the Italians and the Italian fascists certainly called it the roman salute. I'm pretty sure the Germans did too.68.149.54.222 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If this shaky defense of the Nazi salute, the Hitlergruß or Deutscher Gruß as it is apparently known in Germany, rests on it having been originally borrowed from Italian fascists, it supports the view that Spencer was emulating fascists. If he's both a fascist (sympathizer) and a white nationalist, it's not some great affront to logic and neutrality to suppose that he might also be a supremacist. It's possible to be both a nationalist and a supremacist. In fact, it's difficult to be a supremacist without being a nationalist, and his gleeful use of "Nazi-adjacent" imagery is just pouring more gasoline on the trash fire. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Except if you dig into the story a little, you know that the salutes weren't planned and only a small handful of people in the crowd did it. The Atlantic video was deceptively edited to make it look like he was giving the roman salute too, when he was really raising a glass to toast trumps election. In any case, whether you agree with their views or not white nationalism and white supremacy aren't necessarily the same thing and it's dishonest to present them that way. It would be like calling a Zionist a jewish supremacist. It's just not correct. It wouldn't even necessarily be correct that he was trying to homage Italian fascism. The reason people are making nazi comparisons is that the nazis illicit a much more visceral reaction from the average person than the romans, Italian fascism the southern confederacy of even the klan (for good reason). White supremacists do exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's one and I think we should try to be a little more honest in our characterization of people like him whether we agree with his views or not.68.149.54.222 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:RS, as you appear to think that whatever editors believe is what goes onto Wikipedia pages. It's not. We go by what reliable sources state. In regard to this specific issue, do a Google search on "Richard Spencer italian salute" or "Ruchard Spencer Roman salute" and what you get is a bunch of sources describing it as a Nazi salute - without even mentioning Nazi in your search. For fun, here's a quote from white nationalist William Johnson that's in one of those articles in which he addresses Spencer: "You may refer to the stiff-armed greetings as the ‘Roman Salute’ but only about 10 professors of history will catch that comparison. Or you may claim that your 'Hail Trump' is nothing more than 'Hail fellow well met,' but only about 10 professors of English follow that line of reasoning." Point is, what reliable sources state is what goes into the page, not what you or I or anyone else hold as opinion or interpretation of those sources. Rockypedia (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm aware of that, although the "reliability" of some of these media outlets is highly questionable since there's ample evidence of media collusion and bias when it comes to the 2016 election. As for William Johnson, that's kind of irrelevant. Just because it's commonly referred to as the Nazi salute, doesn't mean that any instance of someone giving the stiff armed salute is a Nazi salute. If an image of Italian fascists giving that salute is on wikipedia, should it be described as the Nazi salute? Obviously not. In any case, as i've already mentioned and you've ignored, Spencer didn't give the salute. He raised his glass. The Atlantic video was deceptively edited to make it look like he was giving that same salute. About 4 or 5 guys in that crowd gave the salute and Spencer wasn't one of them. It was just a handful. I don't want to be defending these people, but you're forcing my hand.68.149.54.222 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely missing the central point: You need reliable secondary sources that state these things in order to add them to the page. Your interpretation of a video is not source material that can added. Your defense of "these people" is not source material. And finally, your opinion that it was a "Roman salute" is not source material. All of that is squarely, definitively WP:OR. Read that page. Good bye. Rockypedia (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about your stated desire or lack of desire to defend these people. If you have reliable sources supporting the claim that the Atlantic deceptively edited the video, bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise this seems like a contortion to paint Spencer in the most flattering light possible without regard to verifiability. If an image shows a "stiff-armed" salute by some hypothetical non-Nazi somewhere, we call it what reliable sources call it, without historically dubious euphemisms. We would discuss these hypothetical captions on the hypothetical article's talk page. This article is about Spencer, and Spencer made a Nazi salute according to sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Questionable phrases

• "has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler" - that seems a bit much. If he'd endorsed Hitler, that would be worth a mention, but "refused to denounce" is a negative, and a bit strange. It's also uncited. There's a video clip where Spencer is being pushed on the subject, but can't link to YouTube here, so no link.

It's not unsourced; the source is in the body, so it isn't required in the summary, and WP:LEADCITE actually prefers that it isn't in the lead if it's in the body, although that isn't a requirement. I don't think it needs to be doubled in this case. Rockypedia (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Do you support or oppose removing that information? While I agree that it's cited, I also agree with User:Nagle that mentioning "refusal to denounce" a historical figure is biased, especially in the lead. To use the tired but valuable analogy: if someone hectored an American Communist figure about Stalin and couldn't get a denouncement out of him, would that be fair game for a Wikipedia article? Franzboas (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That kind of judgement is on a case-by-case basis. With Spencer it's relevant; beyond the obvious well-sourced connection to the views of the original Nazi ideology, he's been publicly asked multiple times if he supports or denounces Hitler's views. It should stay. I'm not surprised that you question its inclusion, as your editing pattern largely revolves around emphasizing the Jewishness of various cultural figures. Making Spencer seem more mainstream by whitewashing this info off his page is right in line with the POV you've been pushing. I just noticed you've been blocked indefintely. It's about time someone else noticed the bullshit you've been up to, and I thank them for their work. Rockypedia (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• "openly supported Donald Trump" - "openly" seems strange in this context. Open political support is the normal case. Secret support is unusual, and if discovered and properly cited, worth mentioning. John Nagle (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, seems redundant. I removed the word. Rockypedia (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Dispossessed"

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.

---

@Amin: @Rockypedia: In regards to this edit, I support the version Rockypedia reinstated. It's shorter and simpler, and the longer version puts "dispossessed" in quotes and says "which he believes to be", which is redundant and editorial. Franzboas (talk) 02:02, 4 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.

He's not sure the KKK exist

Pretty weird.[10] Doug Weller talk 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly

Rockypedia, re this edit, I believe you are mistaken - unless I'm mistaken, the cited sources don't support the contention that Spencer repeatedly quoted Nazi propaganda, repeatedly denounced Jews, or repeatedly refused to denounce Hitler. Just once each. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't researched it as in-depth as you, apparently, but at first glance that appears to be correct. I'll try to scout the history and see who added that word and why. Rockypedia (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer's spouse

There are multiple confirmations that Richard Spencer is still married to, not separated from, his wife: https://twitter.com/NinaByzantina/status/875978480315486208 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/ http://freewestmedia.com/2016/12/23/19298/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.48.208 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither source speaks to whether Spencer and his wife are separated. A legally separated couple is still married. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer's wife confirmed that they are back together: https://twitter.com/NinaByzantina/status/878430641670549505 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.48.208 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks - disputed and removed, see wp:blp thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL

Why are these organizations being used as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.121.254 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017‎

Because they have noteworthy things to say, and there is a broad consensus on Wikipedia that these organizations are reliable as long as they're cited with in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The claim by The New York Times that Spencer attacked Jews

I was trying to research this for my own records. Now this article says he went around attacking jews and it was separate from him doing the Hitler Salute, which he claimed was a joke. The only source is The New York Times. The New York Times along with The Washington Post and CNN are extreme propaganda outlets and not reliable news sources. The New York Times said, "He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German." Now I searched and searched the internet for any other source that also said it. All other newspapers that claim it simply cite The New York Times.

Then I founded a Snopes article. Snopes itself is a far left website, that uses fact-checking to push a poitical agenda more than similar leftist fact-checkers. Despite this, Snopes said it was not true. Quoting Snopes:

Spencer did refer to “soulless golems” in his speech, a reference to Jewish folklore about beings magically created from clay or mud. But as Reason editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown (among others) pointed out, Spencer’s mention of “soulless golems” (which occurs around the 3:00 mark here) was used in the context of questioning the humanity and intelligence of members of the “mainstream media,” not specifically that of Jews:

Spencer smiled when referring to “the mainstream media” as Lügenpresse, a term meaning “lying press” that was commonly used in Nazi-era German propaganda to describe non-party-friendly (e.g., Jewish, Communist, and foreign) news sources.

So Spencer was attacking the mainstream media rather than jews. Snopes gave a video of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE

2:30 he says, "The mainstream media, or perhaps we should refer to them in the original German, Lügenpresse. The mainstream media never did. This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous Podcast hosts, dissidents working deep within the Beltway right, proved that they objectively understood politics better than the Republican strategists and political consultants snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It's not just that they are leftists and cucks. It's not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soul-less golem animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking point John Oliver stated the night before. But even though we always took Trump seriously, there is still a moment of unreality, or perhaps a reality that is too painfully intense."

The term Lügenpresse was used in Germany long before Hitler was even born and the Wikipedia article on it says not say it originally was antisemitic.

So there we go, The New York Times lied again. This does not rule out him saying something antisemitic at another time. But the incident The New York Times and others who repeated their claims cite was a lie.

Perhaps someone can find an incident where he actually did make an antisemitic remark? Stoodpointt (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At the bottom of the SNOPES article you cited [11] - "Which is not to say that Spencer and his group are not well-documented white nationalists. Footage from the speech also shows supporters raising their hands in the manner of the Nazi salute, and Spencer smiled when referring to “the mainstream media” as Lügenpresse, a term meaning “lying press” that was commonly used in Nazi-era German propaganda to describe non-party-friendly (e.g., Jewish, Communist, and foreign) news sources." - DN (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes the Hitler Salute was a different thing. The New York Times said he also made some rant outside of this against jews. I cannot find any evidence that he actually did things outside of the Hilter salute. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate things in an attempt to push your point. First, the New York Times said Spencer "railed against Jews." The Snopes article does not dispute this; the Snopes article addresses a CNN chyron that stated "Spencer questions if Jews are people." In fact, the New York Times (the very outlet you called unreliable) got that story right in the very same article - "He mused about the political commentators who gave Mr. Trump little chance of winning - 'One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem.'" The fact that CNN got wrong wasn't wrong in the NY Times at all; it was dead-on correct; Spencer did question if the commentators were people, and that what the NYT said. That fact has nothing to do with the fact that he also railed against Jews in the very same speech. In other words, the whole premise that you put forth in the title of this section is 100% false. Rockypedia (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Stoodpointt, I think you are reading into it too much. SEE WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"(the very outlet you called unreliable)" - I did no such thing, you are thinking of someone else. Please try to attribute things editors say properly. DN (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My entire response was directed at Stoodpointt's initial rambling; sorry for the confusion, there was an edit conflict that came up as I tried to post and I may have placed my rebuttal in the wrong place, slightly. Rockypedia (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay so then there's two issues. (1) Was the "soulless golem" phrase used in nazi propaganda somewhere or did Spencer come up with that himself? When I've web searched "soulless golem", it only speaks of Richard Spencer so if say Goebbels mentioned it then it would make it clear he was quoting nazi propaganda. Whereas if he invented that part himself then he was using a jewish metaphor to attack the mainstream media. Spencer used it in reference to John Oliver as the puppetmaster and John Oliver is not jewish. Then (2), as for the term, Lügenpresse, Wikipedia's own article says it became popular in German revolutions of 1848–49 and I searched that "German revolutions of 1848–49" page for "jew" and "semit" and with no results it suggests the revolution wasn't something anti-jew. Simply using the term "Lügenpresse" wouldn't qualify as quoting nazi propaganda since one single word is not enough and there's media outlets like Breitbart and The Rebel Media that were jewish-founded and today jewish run and they oppose the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart for instance did a lot of exposing the lies of the mainstream media. The "he quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews" bit makes me think he read one of Goebbels speeches and I can't find evidence of it. If there is some Third Reich propaganda using the term "soulless golem" it would prove he did use nazi propaganda. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Lügenpresse" was used heavily in Nazi propaganda. Just because it was also used as early as the 19th century doesn't change the fact that he was referencing the Nazi use of it. Rockypedia (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't match the "he quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews" claim. The phrase makes it sound like he specifically mentioned jews and he quoted at least a sentence from a Hitler or Goebbels speech, not just a single word. It was a single word which is too small to be a quote. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're acting as if each instance stands alone in a vaccum and doesn't prove that he denounced Jews. Are we supposed to act like wondrous children that don't understand the sum total of quoting fascist propaganda, quoting Nazi-era proaganda, "Hail Trump!"'s similarity to "Heil Hitler", and Nazi salutes, and on that basis declare that the New York Times is wrong when it stated that he railed against Jews? Let's not forget that your entire premise, that Snopes debunked the NYT, is completely, 100%, false, as I explained above, because the Snopes article is about CNN's mistake, and the very same quote that was also described by the NYT was described correctly. This entire section is based on a lie that you created. Why don't you have an answer for that? Rockypedia (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you don't like the NYT (which is a WP:RS, despite your diatribe against it), here's a CBS article I found with about a 5-second google search that also remarks on Spencer quoting from Nazi propaganda. Rockypedia (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, firstly, you call what I spent a long time writing, "ramblings". Again per BLP, he never specifically attacked jews. You may as well claim that everyone who has dressed up as Hitler has attacked jews. Spencer during his speech even quoted Theodor Herzl, the Zionist leader who advocated a Jewish homeland in Israel, quoting his famous pronouncement, “If we will it, it is no dream.” Stoodpointt (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Do you have any intention of acknowledging that your title of this entire section is based on your own false premise? Until the answer to both of those is "yes", I won't be wasting any more time getting dragged into discussing Spencer's evasive, pseudointellectual blather, as Grayfell so aptly put it. Rockypedia (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rockypedia here. SEE CITE 1 [12] - DN (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in that big group gives evidence he attacks jews. It only said he is pro white. Many jewish people are white. Stoodpointt (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Bringing up the potential whiteness of Jews is a transparent distraction. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and digging through the speech to form your own assessment of it is WP:OR. The Snopes article says nothing either way about the NYT article. The NYT article says that he has "He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German". If you have a problem with the comment, take it up with the NYT. Or don't. Either way this is a waste of time. Your ideological agreement with a source is neither required nor expected for it to be considered reliable, and the New York Times is reliable by Wikipedia's standards. If you have a reliable source which actually discusses the NYT claim, you surely would've already mentioned it by now. Instead you're trying to drag us into discussing Spencer's evasive, pseudointellectual blather on its own merit. Wikipedia doesn't play that game. We reflect reliable sources with a strong preference towards secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's about as good a summary as we're going to see, I think. Rockypedia (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length fairly recently [13] [14], so I'd say WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also, your argument that "The New York Times along with The Washington Post and CNN are extreme propaganda outlets and not reliable news sources." is a big red flag. Consensus may change at some point, but even so, the mountain of RS will still be the deciding factor if it comes to a consensus by editors that do not acknowledge WP:RS. DN (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I join the consensus. If the Times had made a mistake here then there would have been an uproar. But the only uproar was about CNN (which was criticized by more than just Snopes). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

change May 13 to August 13 for date of Charlottesville march 73.15.1.152 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I realize it's confusing, but the section you're referring to is about the first Charlottesville march, back in May. So it's correct. Rockypedia (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

White Supremacist

Spencer has rejected this label numerous times and the concept "white supremacy". From an objective analysis this label actually counteracts with his actual views and political philosophy . It's bias and highly subjective to include it if it has been verified by the person. Instead the only people who label him are belligerents. He has stated that he self identifies as a pan-european nationalist and identitarian. And sees no qualms with those who label him a white nationalist. oF

From 1:53:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3X-6V1a1gk

Discuses it with David Pakman early in the interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKNhjQHWFo --Justforthefun17 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on the definition of white supremacism is subjective, not objective. We go by reliable, independent sources, not original research. We've already discussed this more times than I can count, and WP:PRIMARY interviews are of extremely limited value. If you have nothing new to contribute, this discussion is unproductive. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The AP, New York Times, Slate, CNN, Chronicle of Higher Education, London Evening Standard, and Christian Science Monitor are not "belligerents." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

However, an argument can be made that the sources listed are conflicting on whether he's a supremacist or a nationalist (CNN has called Spencer a nationalist in the past), because he allegedly claims to be a white nationalist, which very much differs from the label of "white supremacist". It should likely be noted that this was previously discussed, but only the categories reference Spencer as a white nationalist. Both should certainly be noted in the article, not just the former, to keep things unbiased. Aleccat 21:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We have been through this a number of times, including in an RfC a few months ago. The consensus was that Spencer should be described solely as a white supremacist because a white supremacist is a type of white nationalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That argument is failing in its one-liner, biased comments, and does not address what I am arguing for at all. Ex: "White supremacist is OK. First, leaving aside refs for the moment, is it true? Yes, it is. Look at this tweet after the Superbowl: 'For the White race, it's never over'". To reiterate: I'm arguing for both to be included in the article, possibly in the lead. That RfC was almost entirely ignorant that, yes, while the ideas of both white supremacists and white nationalists overlap, they surely are different entities. Reliable sources list the terms as being different. Even HuffPost, a liberal-leaning website, differentiates the two. It seems incredibly biased (and clearly able to be challenged) that we can't include both, when this is clearly controversial and no counter-evidence/sources were presented against labelling Spencer as both a nationalist and supremacist. Even beyond the previous statement, some of the comments for labelling Spencer solely a white supremacist/nationalist, included the "both" argument as verifiable. --Aleccat 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Even HuffPost, a liberal-leaning website..." suggests a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia assesses sources, as well as an attempt at false balance. We do not use assumptions about a source's ideology to pit it against other sources in an attempt to find a "middle ground". The distinction between white nationalist and white supremacist is, at most, one of degree, and is widely regarded by academic and journalistic experts as euphemistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Cite some then. --Aleccat 00:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Aleccat, your argument was raised during the RfC and not accepted by the consensus, and not very long ago I might add. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

agree that using terms such as white nationalist or white supremacist to describe how RS has been characterized in the media is insufficiently accurate. He has also been widely characterized as and called a neo nazi by a number or reliable media sources. How he wants to style himself is also something which should be included in the article in a sentence such as, "Richard Spencer, [optional clauses], is a white supremacist who has been variously characterized as a white nationalist and neo nazi. He has rejected these terms and prefers to refer to himself as a [what ever he's trying to call himself now]. In spite of this, [all the various reasons for him being called a supremacist and nazi by almost everyone]..." etc. Edaham (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad approach, but two notes/questions. First, we already do say that Spencer rejects he "white supremacist" label and prefers to be called an "identitarian"--in the second sentence! Second, what reliable sources describe him as a neo-Nazi? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks, I was hoping you'd ask - sorry about the blank refs, I'm on my phone. One or two sources label him outright as a NN, while others highlight his ties with NN supporters. I think the word should be in the lede somewhere as it is so frequently used when referring to him and his activities.

• http://observer.com/2017/05/richard-spencer-neo-nazis-confederate-symbols/
• https://thetab.com/us/auburn/2017/04/12/richard-spencer-auburn-1189
• https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html?referer=https://www.google.com.hk/
• http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/21/punched-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-turns-his-back-on-pro-paedophile-milo-yiannopoulos-6462636/
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-spencer-neo-nazi-alt-right-christine-fair-a7750186.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/richard-spencer-whitefish-neo-nazi-march
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-leading-alt-right-movement/

Not enough to say RS is a neo-nazi, but more than enough to say

a) RS has been characterized as a neo-Nazi in the press or

b) repeated allegations of ties to neo-Nazi supporters have been made in the press.

I think something like that should go in the lede.

Edaham (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I went through all of those sources, and they all fail verification. None of them are reliable sources that call Spencer a neo-Nazi in their own voice. Just opinion sources, unreliable headlines, and quotes of other folks calling him that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand and agree. The word neo-nazi certainly does crop a lot around him though doesn't it? It is at the very least verifiable (from those sources) that NNs are attracted to his ranks. I think that's already mentioned in the article though. Thank you very much for taking your time to go through those links. My apologies if I created work for you. Edaham (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are those sources written in NPOV that label him a "white supremacist"? , I think its fair to state that is considered to be a white supremacist by many people and groups, not write as an objective fact. But to apply in the introduction with no counter balance is non NPOV. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue has already been decided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Sorry to jump back in here, but consensus can change. There seems to be many editors objecting to the current wording in this BLP. Maybe it's time for another RfC. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I might agree except that an overwhelming number of arguments for removal of the label are not grounded in Wikipedia policy or guidelines and have been repeated over and over and over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: My previous claim that it violated WP:YESPOV and WP:LIBEL should probably be worthy of an RfC since neither were previously brought up. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought NeilN asked you to drop the libel stick? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: He didn't offer a defense against it though, he just shut me down with threats. I just think we should close all open doors on this paragraph by determining consensus on it with all previously unmentioned rules stated. If consensus in favor of not changing the lead section prevails, we should put an FAQ on the top of this page regarding this issue. Sound like a plan, Stan? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Neil's threat aside, I think you misunderstand how the consensus process works. We don't redo RfCs every time someone comes up with a new variation on an old argument that was already considered and rejected. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: "We don't redo RfCs every time someone comes up with a new variation on an old argument that was already considered and rejected." Why? consensus can change. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 02:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it wastes productive editing time and it's disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We've already discussed these specific issues. You have not introduced any unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Trying to slice old objections as thinly as possible doesn't make them into new objections. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, everyone. I'm jumping in on this discussion because I ran across this article and saw that it began with "white supremacist", which is not an accurate description of Richard Spencer for a few different reasons. I've looked through this talk page and can see that there have been a host of different references to the Wikipedia policy already, so I won't paste yet more little clippings from the NPOV article. The reality about this issue is pretty straightforward, and it is that there are no objective sources I've found that say Spencer is a white supremacist. For any of you that have listened to his talks, it is also apparent from his arguments that he does not believe in supremacy of the white race, either. The beliefs that he has expressed, which is of course the only legitimate and objective source that can be used to define his ideology, suggests that he believes that it is best if people keep to their own kind. Another way this idea is often phrased is that homogeneous cultures are generally more successful ones, typically with reference to Asia or Early America. Finally, I would ask those who would otherwise disagree with my angle, consider this: Would you also call the Black Nationalist movement or it's proponents (Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X) Black Supremacist groups? Such an accusation would of course be widely rejected, but they are as legitimate as the claims that Richard Spencer believes in the supremacy of Europeans. I'll be the last to defend any identitarian movement, but the arguments against them cannot be as simple as mislabeling their ideology. --John (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There exists a consensus that sufficient reliable sources describe Spencer as a white supremacist that it is NPOV and due weight to describe him as a white supremacist in this article. As for you being unable to find such sources, they are conveniently listed in this article. (I have not listened to his talks, because I don't make a habit of listening to vile racist nonsense.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"there are no objective sources" ... Have you tried the reference section of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The beliefs that he has expressed, which is of course the only legitimate and objective source that can be used to define his ideology, ... Not "of course." Policy forbids this sort of original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• If reliable sources say he's one, then he's one. This kind of political conviction isn't the same as, say, a religious conviction or sexuality, where the subject's desire matters. He may well want to reject the label, because duh, but this is one of those things where there's a component of reality, not personal choice. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• If someone self-identifies as a white supremacist, then fine. Otherwise, it's completely unacceptable to call him one in Wikipedia's voice. It's fine to point out that he's been called a white supremacist, but to state as fact that he is one runs afoul of multiple policies. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The bias of Wikipedia has become so out of hand. I don't even like Spencer, but he has clearly said time and time again he is not a white supremacist. He had also never said anything along the lines of "whites are superior to all other races" or "all non-whites are inferior." He has a lot of stupid ideas that I find to be unrealistic and racially charged, but to call him a white supremacist objectively is just so inaccurate. Ktm4391 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. Reliable sources say he's a white supremacist, so we can say he's a white supremacist. If you have a problem with that, consider contacting the editors of the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)