Jump to content

Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

New Discussion: Compromise

Even though multiple reliable sources call Richard a white supremacist, it is clear that not all of them do. Labeling someone a white supremacist when there is contradicting evidence (such as Richard himself rejecting a white supremacist label) is in my opinion a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Even if you disagree, calling him a white supremacist has without a doubt only caused problems. Therefore, I propose that we change the first paragraph to only mention his profession. Such as: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" or something like that. We could then make a separate paragraph stating that his views have been described as white supremacist, citing all sources used to call him a white supremacist. In my opinion, we shouldn't use people's political views, particularly something as taboo as white supremacy, as someone's main descriptor, especially if they reject the label. Doing that violates the no original research policy by taking labels from select sources and using that as a descriptor. Also, saying with absolute certainty "[Richard] is a white supremacist" and saying a few sentences later "[Richard] has stated that he rejects the label "white supremacist"" seems contradictory. I'll leave everyone to discuss this issue and hopefully get some consensus before I attempt this compromise.

I'll tag some involved editors to help:

TheBD2000 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We just had a lengthy RfC about this. This is not an OR violation as it's sourced and an accurate representation of how reliable sources describe him. OR would be me saying "Spencer said he likes Whites more than people of color.(source) Therefore he's a racist." Please remove the RfC template per WP:STICK. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
What he said. The fact that Spencer rejects a label he doesn't like is irrelevant: James Earl Ray claims he's innocent, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia from calling him a murderer. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That argument doesn't work because James Earl Ray was convicted of murdering MLK, so he legally did it. Calling Spencer a white supremacist is only based on various opinions. Not facts. I think that it violates the no original research policy. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You "think" it violates WP:OR? You're wrong, for several reasons. First and foremost, you've set up a false equivalency; you can't be "convicted" of being a white supremacist, and being "convicted" of something isn't the be-all end-all of determining what a subject is notable for. James Earl Ray is notable for being a murderer; Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist. The lead notes that he personally doesn't like that label. We've been over this ad nauseum, and you're bringing nothing new. Rockypedia (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That argument doesn't work... Nope, that argument is exactly what you're trying to put over, namely that because Spencer (and Ray) don't like their well-earned labels, Wikipedia is required to insert some mushy waffling.
... based on various opinions. So, basically, you don't understand reliable sources, then? Perhaps you should put down the shovel and stop digging. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@TheBD2000: Please explain why you did not notify everyone involved in the previous RFC. --NeilN talk to me 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, because at that time, I didn't know who Richard Spencer was nor did I know this page existed. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the RFC tag. @TheBD2000: Before you do something like this on a page subject to discretionary sanctions make sure you know what you're doing. No discussion prior to starting this RFC and improper notifications indicate lack of good judgement. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This has already been exhaustively discussed and I don't see any dramatically new points being raised. I suppose the one possible exception is the line "...has without a doubt only caused problems". I don't agree with that. Being accurate is a goal, not a problem. He is only notable for being a white supremacist. Altering accurate wording just because some people don't like it seems a lot like political correctness. No dice. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to revisit this. We just had an rfc that established a strong consensus, you are not going to have much luck trying to change that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a very strange thing to fight over. I come to this page as a curious novice and I see the very first sentence stating "Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. I go, "great! this is what I'm looking for!" Then I click on the source and see a bunch of links that you call "reliable sources" that are all pretty much saying the same thing: Richard Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because..." I find the reasoning of many of those editorials very dualistic and weak. From what I can tell, you guys are saying, "This guy is a White Supremacist because most people believe he is." Since you obviously have an agenda to shame and educate the alt-right (and there is nothing wrong with having an agenda), wouldn't you be more effective to not have such a provocative stance and let the facts stand by themselves? Do what you want to do, all I know is I'm not reading anything after the first sentence.S2pid80it (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My main argument here is that calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist based on various opinions seems like a violation of the no original research policy. Especially since not all reliable sources call him that. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reread NOR. Opinions from reliable sources are fine. Opinions from editors are not. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC is inherently disruptive since it comes on the heels of basically the same RfC that came to a pretty clear consensus. There is no explanation as to what has changed in the meantime or why the consensus would be any different this time around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I do not appreciate this being framed as a "compromise." "Compromise" implies that it is designed to settle a dispute. But there is no dispute. The dispute is over. Accept it. Move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
off-topic
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I do have a persistent interest in making Wikipedia better, but not in wasting my time. The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist"; I don't think they are trying to "whitewash" anybody.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say the NYT is trying to whitewash anybody. I said a handful of editors are trying to whitewash Spencer's Wikipedia page. Please don't twist my words to fit your agenda. Rockypedia (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
And then you quoted me out of context, even though my suggestion was based on a direct quote from The New York Times, in order to make the article more NPOV and closer to the sources. Just like The New York Times, I am not trying to whitewash anybody. Please do not make personal attacks. Please stop. Please focus on the content and RS, not editors. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually I quoted you before you attempted to twist my words to fit your agenda. I don't see what's out of context about "I give up" and "This is a lost cause"; seems to clearly indicate your attitude towards working with other editors. Adding "please stop" and "please do not make personal attacks" to your posts doesn't excuse you ignoring the previous RfC. All of your points were debated already, as you know, and overwhelming consensus decided they weren't valid. Rockypedia (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I recommend you assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. I responded to User:TheBD2000 to be polite, but only succinctly because I didn't think we could reach consensus. I wish we could. We should be able to reach consensus and reflect RS like The New York Times, but last time the discussion was closed just as we were making progress. That's unfortunate. If you're going to suggest some of us are trying to whitewash instead of improve the article, that's discouraging and makes us want to give up. That's all. Now, I am not interested in talking about this endlessly. If you want to talk about improving the article to reflect RS, sure. If you want to talk about a nobody like me, I am not interested. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You just stated you supported changing the descriptor in the lead to "American public speaker and commentator" (as proposed above); you're entitled to your opinion, but from the previous RfC it's clear that most editors don't agree with you. It was hashed out, and this whole section is yet another attempt to revive a POV edit that has little chance of succeeding. So yes, it's a waste of time, and yet you continue to contribute a whole bunch of edits to this waste of time, while claiming that you don't like to waste your time. Rockypedia (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I was responding to User:TheBD2000's constructive suggestion, and then I had to correct the record (I'm not trying to whitewash anything as you suggested, please don't say that I am, please stop). Ultimately, this is not about you; it's about User:TheBD2000. There is no need for you to reply again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel the need to correct the record; I wasn't responding to you when I added my objection comment, and I didn't single you out as trying to whitewash anything; I said the handful of editors interested in removing "white supremacist" from the lead are trying to whitewash Spencer's image, referring to edits attempted over the last year or more. There is no need for you to reply again. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How about changing the first paragraph to "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." and then using the previous sources for that. The change would make this article less controversial and that edit would not be in the least way detrimental. Could that work? TheBD2000 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, we just went through this. You're not the first person to try to soften Spencer's image by changing the lead. You probably won't be the last. But at the end of the day, consensus is that the current lead accurately and dispassionately summarizes what Spencer is primarily notable for. Rockypedia (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
But what is the problem with my proposed edit, Rockypedia? It would only change this article for the better. We could still acknowledge his accusations of being a white supremacist, but we could use his actual profession as his descriptor. The big problem I see in this article is the use of the tense is. By saying that he is a white supremacist, we're saying it with absolute certainty. However, we cannot be absolutely certain that he is a white supremacist, especially when only some reliable sources call him one and he himself rejects the label (which is in my opinion a violation of WP:NOR). We do know however that he is a public speaker and commentator and yada-yada-yada. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal and any reasonable editor could agree (if we disregard consensus before I came on scene). TheBD2000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Since changes very similar to these have already been discussed and rejected, it's unrealistic to expect us to rehash this yet again. Presenting it as reasonable, even in good faith, doesn't make it reasonable. Put simply, he's notable for being a white supremacist publisher and a white supremacist public speaker. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, and downplaying the only reason he even has an article would be exactly that. No fringe theories, no euphemisms, no gentle PR games, no weasel-word nonsense pretending there's some profound philosophical nuance to how he describes his flavor of pretentious racism. Please drop the stick and find something else to do. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, in the talk page section Playing right into his hand, this issue was previously discussed. (I'm just finding this section now.) When these editors made, in my opinion, good points, they were ignored. Richard Spencer is notable for founding a couple companies and being a public speaker and commentator, but there is no reason to call him a white supremacist when you can use something less insulting than that term. TheBD2000 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Many reliable sources call him that. Consensus was for that term. You don't like it, we get that. But the glue factory is overstocked at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@TheBD2000: Your above two posts make it sound more and more like you are advocating the previous RFC should be ignored simply because you weren't part of it and disagree with the outcome. Please drop that line of argument. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note this is no longer an RFC. If enough support appears for a new alternative then an RFC could be held. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revival

Time to revive this. Read WP:NPOV. It states clear as day:This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So consensus does not override the NPOV policy.

WP:YESPOV says: Avoid stating opinions as facts Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are clearly opinions and not facts.

It also says: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Richard Spencer has been called both a white supremacist and a white nationalist by many sources. Both assertions have been undoubtedly contested and thus both should be treated as opinions and not facts.

Finally, WP:IMPARTIAL says that Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. The current version of Wikipedia is engaging in the dispute by matter-of-factly calling Spencer a white supremacist.

I stand by my previous proposal to write the opening paragraph like this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." That wording is not objectionable in the slightest way.

In a nutshell, I hope that all editors can see past their own bias against Richard Spencer. I never said that I was a fan of his, because I'm definitely not. I just think that attacking him seriously damages the reputation of Wikipedia. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We avoid stating facts as opinions, and it is a fact that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist. We include his opinion disagreeing with that characterization, but that opinion does not outweigh the statements of a wide variety of unquestionable reliable sources. The consensus on this subject is clear and convincing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, it is not a fact that he is a white supremacist, various opinion pieces call him that, but it is not factual. No one's opinion can be factual unless the words come out of their mouth. Secondly, some reliable sources call him a white nationalist, and some call him a white supremacist. As per WP:YESPOV, If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Calling him a white supremacist is indisputably a direct violation of that policy. One final note, the main section of WP:NPOV says that This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Is it certain that calling him a white supremacist violates the NPOV policy. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Diaz: I think there's a confusion between the truth and a neutral point of view. NPOV is about accurately and fairly reflecting reliable sources. The guidance on opinions (WP:YESPOV) is generally about when reliable sources are conflicting about their descriptions or when discussing notable but individual opinions. It states that "As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" (emphasis mine). To the best of my understanding, sources call Spencer either a white supremacist or a white nationalist. This difference in labeling is not, in my opinion, "conflict" among reliable sources as the no sources assert the other label is incorrect. Rather, there's variation in the label used, but no dispute about those labels. Sources use "white supremacist" (USA Today, AL.com, BBC 1 and 2, The Independent, CNN, Inside Higher Ed, VICE, The Detroit News, NY Times, Missoulian). Buzzfeed labels him a white nationalist but his "think tank" as white supremacist ([1]). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses nationalist and supremacist in the same article ([2]) but in another article calls him just a supremacist ([3]). Others call him a white nationalist (LA Times 1 and 2, Boston Globe, WaPo, Time, NY Mag, NY Times, The Guardian). A few call him a neo-Nazi (NBC affiliate WPMI, NBC News). Are there any reliable sources that contest these labels? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: The word "conflicting" is defined as "incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those reports are arguably contradictory but they do vary. Thus, those reports are conflicting. Wikipedia stating with certainty that Spencer is a white supremacist is obviously taking sides. White supremacy is a political ideology or opinion. Opinion is defined as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are only stating their opinion, not fact. As someone's opinion cannot be verified unless they voice it themselves. That's just common sense. WP:YESPOV says that opinions can't be asserted as facts. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The sources aren't stating these labels as opinions though. They're stated as fact. Additionally, conflicting, in my reading of NPOV, is when sources disagree or use mutually exclusive labels/descriptions. But moving past that, what are you suggesting we do to address what you see as a problem? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: They are stating their opinion as they can't read Richard Spencer's mind, and the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces. but that can be argued about all day. Moving past that, I suggest that we change the opening paragraph to: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and we make a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." (The last one can be worded differently.) That way, nothing in the article is controversial or libelous (NOT a legal threat), and everyone wins. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
See, "the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces" is utterly incorrect. The sources linked above and in the article are not opinion pieces. They are verifiable statements by reliable sources. An opinion piece would be an op-ed or a self-published source like a blog or guest column. The sources are unwavering in their description of Spencer as either a White nationalist or a White supremacist. Part of Wikipedia's venerability policy as well as WP:NPOV is that we reflect reliable sources without inserting our own bias/POV, even if those sources disagree with our views or are possibly wrong. The essay WP:TRUTH explains this well. We are a tertiary source which summaries reliable [{WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] by giving due weight to the various aspects of a topic based on the totality of those reliable sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Sources that describe Spencer as a white supremacist are opinion pieces. He has also been described as a white nationalist and a white separatist. As we all know, those terms contradict each other. Thus, Wikipedia is taking sides by calling him a white supremacist and violating WP:YESPOV. Also keep in mind that it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @The Diaz: I think you do not understand what an opinion piece is. These links might help: WP:BIASED (and WP:RS in general) and WP:POVS. A news article from BBC or NYTimes are not opinion pieces unless they're in a section for op-eds or guest columns. WP:LIBEL is for unsourced libelous material. All info here is sourced with reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I have already read all of those. WP:BIASED says that "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Also WP:NPOV states clear as day: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So WP:YESPOV overrides the other policies and even consensus. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Notice that the examples are ascribing opinions to individuals. We don't have that here; the opinions are by news sources generally, not individuals. I feel I've said my part. If others with to try to further explain this to you, they can. It is clear that YESPOV is not readily applicable in this case as we don't have opinions from individuals and we are not dealing with op-eds. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"White supremacist," "white nationalist" and "white separatist" aren't contradictory, though - not in the least. All are various facets of the belief system that white people are somehow a special, chosen people superior to others and who should establish, by force, systems of legal segregation or even ethnic cleansing to expel "inferior" races from places where whites choose to live. I'm unaware of any serious viewpoint that those terms contradict or conflict - to the contrary, they are entirely complementary. The reliable sources cited here do not treat the terms as contradicting or conflicting and that is what ultimately matters on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Calling him a white nationalist is indirectly refusing to say that he is a white supremacist, thus contradicting the term. White separatism and white supremacy are two different subgroups of white supremacy; one can't be both, thus those two terms contradict each other and they all contradict each other. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think your extreme parsing of these terms is reflected by the reliable sources. Any white "separation" would inherently involve forcible expulsion of people of other races, and such an act is inherently supremacist inasmuch as it treats white people as superior to those other races. Again, more to the point, the sources say what they say about Spencer and we rely on those sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: BUT THEY CONFLICT! No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once! WP:YESPOV states as clear as day: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. This article CLEARLY violates that rule by saying Richard B. Spencer is a white supremacist. Even though there is conflicting evidence in sources. What in the world is wrong with my proposed change?! THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once!"- that's your opinion, and pretty clear WP:OR. I disagree and have a different opinion. But neither of our opinions matter. Only what reliable secondary sources say. You're beating a dead horse at this point. Sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: The Southern Poverty Law Center says: "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies." Keep in mind the word "or". It's one or the other. Not both. Also, everyone knows the term "white supremacist". So sources that don't call him a white supremacist are, technically, refusing to call him that. Some even call him a Neo-Nazi! We all know there's a difference there. Ergo, different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about the matter, and WP:YESPOV kicks in and we must treat all of his labels as opinions and not facts. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah you need an English class. "Or" in that sentence doesn't preclude the possibility of both being the case. But I think you know that, and you're bending yourself (and logic) at this point in order to force your POV onto this issue, and it's been my experience that discussions of this type are useless. Sorry. If you want to discuss something rationally, I'll hear you out. On this issue.... dead horse. Rockypedia (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This is becoming WP:IDHT/WP:TENDENTIOUS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: I am in no way being irrational here. The conjunction "or" is defined as "used to link alternatives". These sources are conflicting on the issue of what to label him. Some saying "white supremacist", some saying "white separatist" (they are NOT the same thing), some saying "white nationalist" (ergo refusing to label him as either subgroup), and some even calling him a Neo-Nazi (which is indisputably different than the three previous labels). For the umpteenth time, here is what WP:YESPOV (which is NEVER overridden by other policies or even consensus) says: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. "Conflicting" means "Incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those four terms are contradictory and they ARE at variance. Hence, that paragraph violates the rule. NOTHING is wrong with changing it to make the article less of an attack on him. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You have 3 rather experienced editors disagreeing with your interpretation of NPOV here. The terms have different meanings, but the sources are not conflicting by using different but related terms. Conflicting sources is when they fundamentally are at odds with each other. That is not the case here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Uh, no, pick up a dictionary. They conflict. They vary and they are contradictory. This is the English language that we're talking about here. WP:YESPOV does NOT say that conflicting sources are "funadamentally at odds with each other". What you're doing is just making a pathetic last-minute attempt to defend this libelous version of his article even though it's a clear violation of NPOV. Accept it. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, no... you're the only one who seems to think these are "conflicting assertions". EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Let me spell it out for you real slowly. RICHARD. SPENCER. HAS. BEEN. CALLED. MANY. THINGS. . . SOME. OF. WHICH. ARE. CON-TRA-DIC-TOR-Y. . . ALL. OF. THEM. ARE. AT. VARIANCE. . . THUS. THEY. ARE. CON-FLIC-TING. AND. VIOLATE. THE. WP:YESPOV. POLICY. Is that clear? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: no, sorry. Can you repeat that? I don't understand the extraneous punctuation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: The summary of this argument, Richard Spencer has been called various things by various sources, some of which are contradictory, all are at variance. That meets the definition of conflicting, thus, they conflict. Ergo, the current article's opening paragraph violates the WP:YESPOV policy. Better? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: @Zigzig20s: @Nomoskedasticity: @Rockypedia: @Electrosharkskin: @Crillfish: @JRBx45x: @Grayfell: @EvergreenFir: THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to call the knackers. Nothing has changed since last month. Pinging multiple editors over the exact same issue, yet again, is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Just making sure it doesn't go unnoticed. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's very obvious. It doesn't make it any less disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Diaz, I don't appreciate being pinged to a discussion quite as disruptive as this. Please drop the stick before this becomes an administrative issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DrFleischman. The Diaz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve here with your pinging (canvassing, really) and your all. caps. yelling. but this is not Facebook. Time to drop this stick. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Libel

Closed. Take it up with legal@wikimedia.org if you have concerns. --NeilN talk to me 17:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No objections to this, huh? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz Drop it. This is not a request. --NeilN talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: No defense for the claim? I'm within my rights to challenge this material which could land the Wikimedia foundation and its editors in legal trouble. All I'm trying to do it protect us. Read the policy. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Diaz: Okay, let me be clearer. You can educate yourself on libel elsewhere. Continue in this vein and I will topic ban you. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Apophasis... EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Please remove slanderous claims that Spencer is a white supremacist. It is not based in truth and lacks proper research. If the man has rejected the term multiple times and has labeled himself as something else, he should not be labeled as the slur assigned to him by others. If another page cites a an athlete as a gamer, or cheater yet the athlete has only demonstrated athletics, it would be untruthful and slanderous to label him as anything else.

Wikipedia has no place for untruth. Stop lying and wake up. You are only hurting yourselves and others by twisting the real truth Flaxenhair (talk) 05:39, 26 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.

Please note, a discussion has been opened at WP:ANI#Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please just facts

I came to this page in hopes of learning about Richard B. Spencer and to understand the controversy behind him and I see basically an attack piece on him.

The proof that he is a White Nationalist or is cited with a bunch of sources accusing him of being a White Nationalist. Unless he personally wears this label, then you need to change it to "Accused White Nationalist" otherwise, it shows the article as biased and people like me will lose interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He does personally embrace that label. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
He has repeatedly denied the label. What about the compromise, "While Richard Spencer rejects the label, many people believe he is a White Supremacist"? S2pid80it (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and there is a clear consensus to describe Spencer as a white supremacist. We do very prominently note that Spencer disputes the label and prefers to be described as an identitarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason that is being "discussed extensively and repeatedly" is because you are being dismissive of other legitimate points of views. This page is clearly biased, weak on facts, and poorly written. Richard Spencer, in my opinion, has some very dangerous ideas that needs a light shined on it. But if people come here for information and stop reading after the first sentence, what do you accomplish? What is the point of your antipathy? Are you hoping that Richard Spencer will read this and feel ashamed and rethink his ways? From what I can tell about the man, he thrives on this kind of stuff.S2pid80it (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It says he's a White supremacist though. Which is incorrect. He is a White nationalist, not a supremacist. I have posted another section about this, where he directly says he does not support supremacy. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler." Citations, please. Also, denounce Adolf Hitler how? In what context? I know you guys don't like him, but shouldn't you at least try to sound unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk • contribs)

Read the talk page archives about this. WP:STICK EvergreenFir (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

Muhrarday (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
See response to the other request made below. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Final Observations From a Self-Described Neutral Observer

I initially came to this site based on stuff that I was reading on Facebook about Richard Spencer. The very first sentence confused me because it claimed that Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. That surprised me because the term is so pejorative that it surprised me that Spencer would claim that mantle. So, I clicked on the reference and saw a long list of links to back up this fact. All of the links were to editorials that basically said, "Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because of..."

So, I came onto this discussion and pointed out in the "Just the facts" thread that there are problems with citing editorials as fact. The response that I got was "This has already been discussed and we are not changing it." That prompted me to read the very interesting discussion.

I have no interest in getting involved with what appears to me to be a juvenile power struggle, but I want to make my observations that I have no doubt will be discounted.

Because of this discussion, I was forced to go and do a lot of googling and thinking and what-not. While, I am not 100% sure that I have all sides of the issue, I can certainly understand why people would see him as a racist. The issue that I have is that I was not able to reach that conclusion by reading this Wikipedia page which is the ostensible purpose of this site.

From what I understand the argument for calling him a White Supremacist is that vast majority of the reporters and editors in trusted news sites think he is. The problem with that mentality is that it connotes that "truth" is something that is voted on. Back in the day, a newspaper wouldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald "A murder". They would call him "A CONVICTED murderer". While it seems subtle, the former is an opinion, the latter is a fact and the newspapers were very concerned about facts. The editorial board might use the word "murderer" in the opinion section, but you would never see that in an actual news article. Nobody, left or right, Democrat or Republican saw that distinction as trivial. It was holy. It was important that the newspapers be seen as a place that could be trusted to deliver only facts.

The general attitude of the "truth keepers" is also troubling. I am seeing threats of banning people and passive-aggressive insults that I find unbecoming. These people seem to believe that anyone who questions their collected wisdom must be a Richard Spencer sympathizer and probably have some nefarious pro White Supremacist agenda. This, of course, does nothing but drive people who disagree with them to other sources to get their information which only feeds into more and more and more people deciding that they find Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh more trustworthy for their information than the "mainstream media".

Based on the general tone of this community, I fully expect to be discounted and ignored at best and possibly even derided. That's fine. However, I want to implore you to look at a similar wiki page on Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Phelps-Roper). It doesn't hold back on all of the hateful things she has done while avoiding statements of "Shirley Phelps is a Person of Hate."

One last thing: as I said before, I want to encourage you to think of the purpose of your antipathy. It is understandable on why you obviously hate him. But my question to you is, "What do you hope to accomplish by ostensibly slandering him?" Left-leaning people who are obsessed with Spencer will not learn anything. Anyone else will read the first sentence and conclude it is a partisan article, and immediately dismiss it and try to look for the information somewhere else. While your mission to change hearts and minds are noble, I don't think this petty fight is an effective way to do it.

Good luck to you. S2pid80it (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, this is actually not a legitimate discussion. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to criticize fellow editors. If you want to turn this into a legitimate discussion, then talk about the specific problems you see with the article, and perhaps suggest some improvements. Besides, if these were your "final observations," then why are you insisting that the discussion remain open? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

S2pid80it How can anyone take your assertions seriously when you can't distinguish between editorials and news stories? This article cites plenty of the latter that identify Spencer as a white supremacist. Spencer's claims about himself have as much weight as your "self description" as a neutral observer. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Response to S2pid80it: You said, and I quote, "All of the links were to editorials that basically said, "Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because of..." - that is a lie. Find me even one source that cited in this article that says, "We say he is because..." You can't.
You said, "The response that I got was "This has already been discussed and we are not changing it." That is a lie. There was a huge response, and there's been a huge response every time someone has brought this up, and to say you got a one-sentence dismissive reply is a total fabrication.
"reach that conclusion by reading this Wikipedia page which is the ostensible purpose of this site"??? That's the exact opposite of the purpose of this site. Wikipedia is not here to make you reach a conclusion. Wikipedia is here to summarize reliable sources that speak about the subject of each article.
"Back in the day, a newspaper wouldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald "A murder". They would call him "A CONVICTED murderer" Oh really? Interesting, since Oswald was never convicted of anything. So you just pulled that out of your proverbial behind.
I could go on, but it gets exhausting.
How are we supposed to take this diatribe seriously? What happened to WP:NOTAFORUM? Please, someone strike this as inappropriate for an article talk page. I'll support the deletion of this garbage. Rockypedia (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I support hatting, as does MarkBernstein. I think we have a consensus, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hat it! Scaleshombre (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one am happy as shit that we finally got a "self-described neutral observer" here to comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me for responding but I have a follow-up question. I totally understand that you guys are smarter and more talented me. It is obvious that you don't suffer fools like me lightly so this makes it difficult for me to bring it up because this point is just as stupid as the last. However.... from what I can tell, you didn't answer my question. As a wiki novice, I am not smart enough to know the difference between a "forum" and a "diatribe" from a legitimate concern (obviously it is MY concern).

I COMPLETELY get your point: because the NYT and CNN are "trusted news sources" (or whatever you call them) and the people who write the editorial and analysis articles that you cite, have all voted that Spencer is a white supremacist, then by the wiki standards, he is a white supremacist. Ok. fair enough. My pea brain was not aware of how these facts were created. Now that I understand the definition of 'fact' in the wikipedia sense, I can FINALLY accept your label.

But you still have not addressed my second concern. Again (bowing down in profound humbleness), I understand completely, that fools don't deserve second thoughts, but if you would allow me to ask my probably over-the-top stupid question yet again, it would help me, and I suspect help others idiots like myself:

These same sources that have voted that Spencer is a White Supremacist, have also universally labeled President Donald Trump a Liar. It seems to me, they have a FAR longer list of facts to back that label up and probably 65% of the country would vote for that fact if they had the were given the opportunity. Given the wikipedia standards, that means that Donald Trump's page should be changed to "Donald Trump (Liar)" and the topic sentence should read, "Donald Trump is a Liar who was elected the 45th POTUS" oslt.

However, this very legitimate "voted upon fact" would unnecessarily(in my view) inflame 65 million people who voted for him. These people (though some of those sources seem to be voting that they are no longer people) also enjoy wikipedia. While it is factually true as we are now defining "facts", it adds very little value and creates unnecessary antipathy and would immediately cause 65 million people to (fair or not) start calling wikipedia fake news. However, ("oh, God: he's KILLING me!"), if you moved all of donald trump's lies into a separate "Lies Donald Trump is Accused of", you might appear more neutral. A novice will then be more willing to go, "Damn. I didn't know THAT."

Please keep in mind that no analogy is perfect. After you through ripping it apart by all of many inaccuracies that are probably in it, could you PLEASE try to understand the spirit of the question and at least address it?

Thank you again for your hard work. You are on a profoundly important mission guarding this page! S2pid80it (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So much for "final" observations, I guess. Rockypedia (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I worked hard to recognize your intelligence, I should also congratulate you on your keen powers of observation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
S2pid80it, I think your comments here have been uncivil, inappropriate, and disruptive to Wikipedia, so I am in favor of referring you for administration attention. However, meanwhile, there is a nugget of a good faith "concern" in your latest comment, namely, that if we adhere to our verifiability policy for this article, then we must also say that Trump is a liar, and that would be bad for the encyclopedia as it would damage its credibility. This is an unfounded concern. First off, the current consensus at Talk:Donald Trump is that we shouldn't call him a liar. So you can sleep well at night knowing that that's not going to happen anytime soon. Second, if you have a problem with our policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:RS, then you should stop editing here and march straight to WP:VPP to explain your undoubtedly good faith concern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
S2pid80it's sarcasm and condescension also serves no purpose, and this should also be hatted. Trying to appeal to our supposed liberal smugness by insulting our intelligence while trying to compare Spencer to Trump as a point of mock concern announces loud and clear that this person is WP:NOTHERE. This kind of iamverysmart post might belong on reddit, but not here. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree. WP:AGF has its limits. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether we should shove this latest comment under the hat? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's all useless, group it with the other garbage. Rockypedia (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Correcting a Misrepresentation of BA honors

Wikipedians in charge of this semi-protected page, I would like to correct the record.

Richard Spencer did not graduate from the English department at UVA with "High Distinction." He was not a Distinguished Major in English and did not write a senior thesis for us. While I am happy to put an editor in touch with the Registrar here at the University of Virginia, the requested edit should be much easier than that to effect. This doesn’t rise to the level of the Philip Roth edit fiasco (https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia).

All a trusted editor needs to do is check the source cited here (The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/). The article states only, "He lasted just one academic year at Colgate before transferring to the University of Virginia, where he majored in music history and English."

Spencer seems to be inflating his credentials on his Wikipedia page. He was one of our run-of-the-mill majors.

On behalf of the English Department, I ask that you edit the following line:

In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. with High Distinction in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.

to read

In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.

Our department deplores Spencer’s racist politics and censure his self-credentialing. We disown him. He dishonors The University.

Yours,

Brad Pasanek Director of Undergraduate Study English, University of Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpasa13 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Scaleshombre (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW this content was added by BrillLyle without sourcing in November 2016. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I take that back. It was sourced to Spencer's personal website, which has since been taken down. So Spencer basically lied about his academic credentials. Nice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I did some digging, and there's a Newsweek piece that says he graduated with "high distinction...." It's an opinion piece, but it's by a Newsweek staffer. At the same time, though, we have the note above disputing the "high distinction" claim. I'm fine with leaving the disputed claim out. (I know this is definitely not Wiki policy, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that claims that redound to an a-hole's credit should be held to a higher standard of proof than that which applies to non-aholes.) That said, should this be looked into further? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the situation is fairly clear. Spencer’s site misled both Wikipedia and Newsweek. There is no need to mention the disputed honor at all -- it's not particularly notable, but one sympathizes with the department’s embarrassment and eagerness to (partially) clear their record. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Newsweek source is reliable. A few other unreliable sources said the same thing. We should be good. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"refused to denounce Hitler"

this just seems like a personal attack on his character, with a gotcha topic that doesn't belong in the intro or article at all, if anything it could be better wordedWikigirl97 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

following copied from my talk page. These are questions for the article's talk.
above user's article talk related questions copied from my talk page.

what's a "scanctions"? also it just seems out of place even if there is a source for it, wtf is refusing to reject something anyways? sounds like some jewish gotcha bs to me that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikigirl97 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Edaham (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikigirl97 Can you elaborate on your "jewish gotcha bs" comment? I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article, but it might help us understand your issues a little better. Right now it seems that editing WP is the least of your problems. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

info on discretionary sanctions can be found here. Pursuant to your other queries, please read wp:v and wp:rs. We are at liberty to populate our articles with as much of what you clearly see as Fagin-esque attack material as we like - provided that it contributes to the subject at hand (which it does as the subject of the article is really only notable for saying this kind of stuff) and is reliably sourced. If someone wants to make a spectacle of themselves by saying lots of stupid stuff to reporters, they are in effect writing their own attack page by shining the light of their diatribe through our lense of impartiality. Lastly, using the word Jew as a racial slur term on my talk page is not OK per wp:civil. If nobody else takes this up in the meantime, I will file a report at wp:ANI the next time I see it happen. Edaham (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikigirl97, you probably ought to attempt to explain yourself here, because the use of a religion as a slur is not acceptable behavior from a Wikipedia editor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's no longer possible. (Hopefully the Cornfield has plenty of tiki torches to help her see at night.) Perhaps a moment of silence is in order. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"She" has been CU blocked as a sock of {{user|Fishguy7)). Blamed her computer for the error (literally). But I can assure everyone that it was no error, whoever the person is behind the accounts that comment was just the tip of the iceberg. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well ain't that interesting. I knew she was a sock of someone, based on her editing history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Conservatism in the US" navbox

I removed the "Conservatism in the United States" template from the bottom of the article. Editor Rockypedia restored it, writing in the edit summary "there's approx. a thousand articles that describe Spencer's political stance as conservative." Most of the RS I've seen talk about Spencer's estrangement from mainstream conservatism, including his being booted from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year, and his firing from The American Conservative magazine because his views were too extreme. He may have started out as a mainstream conservative, but he's "evolved" into something very different. I think it's undue to keep the navbox on his page, and would like to get feedback on removing it. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that if there was a category "Mainstream Conservatism in the United States", then Spencer would not belong in it, per the arguments that Scaleshombre has made. However outside of mainstream conservatism they are, though, Spencer's views are definitely on one side of the political spectrum, and that's the conservative side. Rockypedia (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
One of two things is happening: Either you're using your own definition of "conserve/consevative," or the definition has changed. Spencer is actually quite liberal, not seeming to desire to conserve the values of the founding populous of the USA. Simply because both of you, perhaps, have become more liberal doesn't mean the other remains on the side on which he started. You'd simply both be liberals to varying degrees.140.254.77.235 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Posting in the middle of an older discussion is poor-form and potentially misrepresents the ongoing discussion. If you want to comment about how reliable sources describe Spencer, include those sources, otherwise let old conversations die a natural death. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not exactly. There are terms that describe Spencer's views more accurately -- alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, etc. Lumping him in as a conservative is undue. The article talks about his conservative roots, which is clearly appropriate and backed by RS. Including the Conservatism template, however, suggests that he's currently a significant figure in conservative politics, which is not supported by RS. It's like calling Mussolini a socialist, or Ronald Reagan a Democrat; it was true at earlier points in their careers, but it wasn't those affiliations that made them notable (or notorious, in Mussolini's case). We need to remove the template. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and think those analogies are not accurate. However, I'm more than willing to go with consensus on this; if it turns out that a majority of other editors agree with you, then fine. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the page's history, and I noticed that the template was first added a few weeks ago without consensus. It really should have been discussed first. Also, I'm sure it's not your intent, but the template indirectly legitimizes Spencer's views by connecting them to mainstream conservatism. If there was an encyclopedic reason to do so (i.e., RS/due weight), then I'd have no problem with it. But that's not the case here. Why should we help him when we don't have to? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, could you list some of the articles you referred to? If RS validate your claim, I'd be more inclined to drop the issue. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
well, I found a handful, but I have to admit they're few and far between, and most, while decent sources, don't rise to the level of, say, New York Times reliability. Truth be told, I found more sources that describe how he's taken to calling conservatives "fags" and "flabby" on Twitter.
and does not approve of fellow conservative Richard Spencer, a 38-year-old controversial white nationalist who coined the term "alt-right" in 2010
Richard Spencer, another conservative speaker... drew protests in December

Two examples, but pretty thin. I've changed my opinion and I don't have a problem with the category being removed. Rockypedia (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took another look at the sources, as well as your openness to revising your initial assessment accordingly. Thank you. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist debate in this talk page makes the news

The debate on this page has recently been featured in a news report about Wikipedia titled "Are Jews white and is Richard Spencer a white supremacist? Wikipedia debates" and published on the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It seems this is the second such piece to be written for the newspaper (see: "The royal houses of Netanyahu and Baratheon: Inside this week's drama on Hebrew Wikipedia") by a writer called Omer Benjakob who claims to be researching Wikipedia. --192.118.73.36 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

They should have "sic"'d my "sic". Volunteer Marek  09:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe writing that a news editor at one of the world's great newspapers "claims to be researching Wikipedia" is a BLP violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Add descriptor "writer" to lead section, as I don't believe one's ideology, that being white supremacy, counts as an occupation. DanKasich (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)User:DanKasich DanKasich (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please get consensus before requesting changes to the article that can be seen as controversial. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 04:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Clarification - he isn't notable (per wp:n) for being a writer. He's notable for his positions and ideologies on things, which are noted in the lead. other things are written about him in accordance with wp:due, hence the fact that he's done other stuff is noted after the main reason for which he has achieved the notability required to warrant an article. Edaham (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

Apologies, i forgot to mention what i would replace it to, which would be I think another sentence should be added below saying

"In October of 2014, Richard Spencer made the statement on his twitter: "Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It's not going away, not something to get worked up about.

using this tweet https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/528395974666764288?lang=en as a source. " Muhrarday (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Muhrarday: which sentence do you want replaced and could you provide a reliable source for the change? SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Not done For now. Please provide a reliable source for the change and specify which sentence you would like changed. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we need a reliable third-party source for this. For example if Spencer gives an interview to the Dallas Voice, we can cite that.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It would have to be more than an interview transcript. I believe there's a consensus here that we're avoiding using primary sources to give Spencer a platform for his beliefs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I obviously don't think we should cite non-reliable sources like Radix or his own Twitter account (which was suggested above). But an interview in a reliable source is fine by me. It makes no sense to censor his speech because the majority (myself included) views it as too heterodox/unpalatable. We can either AfD his article, or treat it like any other article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't make ultimatums. Context always matters, so no article is treated like "any other article". Wikipedia shouldn't ignore context to provide loopholes for him to spread his garbage around. We must use caution and evaluate his comments on a case by case basis. We would need a sourced reason to include this beyond merely that he said it in an interview one time. This is the same with celebrity gossip if you want a comparison. Just because it can be sourced, that doesn't mean it should be included. Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, any new content needs to be 'due' to be added to the article. I agree with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

His website

Richardbspencer.com is currently a boilerplate placeholder from a domain site. Archive.org shows this happened in mid-August, first through Squarespace, and then Hover. Rather than link to spam or potentially worse, it seems like it's better to remove the link until this resolves. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Christian

@DrFleischman: You have reverted my edit under the pretext of "unclear if speaker was referring to *that* kind of cultural Christian". I ask you to return the wiki link back. As you can notice in the interview, Spencer then explains to Martin what he means by calling himself a "cultural Christian" (8:40):

Martin: What is a "cultural Christian"?
Spencer: I grew up in a Christian background, I resonate with Christianity and so on.

It clearly corresponds with the definition in Cultural Christian: "cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up."--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Declined, but if the consensus overrules me then I'm fine with that. While I'm not a hardliner on MOS:LWQ, I think it's a bad idea when we're quoting a living person talking about their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Cultural Christian sounds like a primitive definition for a person who follows Judeo-Christian values. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nina Kouprianova

Nina Kouprianova is not Russian American. She has immigrated to the United States and was not born in the United States. Kouprianova is Russian and probably has as much respect to the United States as Alexander Dugin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The case with Spencer looks like the old saying Cherchez la femme. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the Russian-American label, since it failed verification. Thanks for the tip. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Research -- what is on his website

This is original research, right?

His website says he left Duke "to pursue a life of thought-crime."[1]

References

  1. ^ "About". RichardBSpencer.com. Retrieved November 22, 2016.

Not only that, the link is broken. I propose we strike it out. However, I know there may be certain reasons we include self-incriminating statements in Wikipedia. If there is a rule for that which is applicable, I'm all ears.

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, his website did actually say that. I don't see an issue, it's his own self-description of why he left. I interpreted it as a dig (by Spencer) at Duke or academia more generally.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Imagine how much drama the world would've been spared had Duke taught him why his ideas were wrong, instead of letting him go. Anyway, I don't think this is OR as it is a direct quote. But if the link is broken, that is problematic, and one could argue the quote is now undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are generally frowned upon. However, in this specific context the standard is WP:SELFPUB. I do believe it meets the requirements of that standard, if and only if: (1) the website can be verified as belonging to him and under his exclusive control and (2) the statement was not the result of a hacker. [requirement 4 of WP:SELFPUB]
I would be more comfortable if a secondary source mentioned it. I just looked, and it appears there is at least one secondary source: [4]. I will add it. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that you added that source I've removed the ref to Spencer's dead website. There's no benefit to retaining a superfluous primary source that contains misinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Any article beginning with 'soandso is an American White Supremist' is hard to take seriously as an encyclopedic work.

I make no apology for his political views but the fact remains that this is NOT how encyclopedias are written, particularly where the topic involves a living person.

There is some irony to this: His right to hold his viewpoint and express it is the same one used to malign it. Also, there's the matter that it is improbable that anyone contributing to this article's content has an entry of their own on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.69.145 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017

Charles Manson has a rather prominent Wikipedia entry. Does that, in your view, make his opinions more valid here. And which is the article about you, yourself, on Wikipedia that you believe elevates your own viewpoint? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a specific change that you are proposing, please phrase it in the form "I think X should be changed to Y" and explain your reasons. Rockypedia (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia didn't choose the term. It came from sources regarding this subject. Edaham (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when the subject of an article is an American White Supremist (sic), then that is EXACTLY how an encyclopedia article should begin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I also find it highly suspect that he would be labeled as something he doesn't himself claim to be. I believe very strongly that the wording should be changed to remove the term as a factual descriptor. This is the first time I've seen this kind of language used in the first paragraph of a person's Wikipedia page. It reads like a slander piece. And Dr. Fleischman, I'm not sure how you can consider being called a "White Supremacist" to not be a pejorative -- would you be alright with being called a white supremacist, assuming you don't yourself identify as such? I also agree with the notion that this tarnishes Wikipedia's neutral reputation. I came here to learn more about the man, not to read an opinion piece. Dr.Novick (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'd want to know what the reliable sources say Spencer is, along with what Spencer himself says he is. And that's what our article does, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This has been extensively hashed out over and over and over again on this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a disagreement over the definition of a white supremacist and how it differs from that of a white nationalist. White supremacists believe (as the name would imply) that white people are superior to other races and therefore should be dominant over them. This is in conflict with the beliefs of the group he's most commonly affiliated with (the Alt Right) and with the views he himself has espoused (white nationalism). Or, perhaps this is an assertion that nuance is unimportant in the context of the discussion of political beliefs -- which I think is misguided, at best. To be blunt, I find these opinionated mischaracterizations fairly alarming. I in no way agree with Richard Spencer nor the groups he identifies with, but I believe very strongly in correctly representing individuals' beliefs. I suspect this article will never be corrected, but it will continue to be a bruise on the impartial reputation and underlying idea behind this great site. I find it incredibly unfortunate that so many people in these positions of authority are completely unable to look past their clearly demonstrated bias (and/or ignorance). Dr.Novick (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
We're not going through this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I find it admirable that this one description of all the pages on Wikipedia and this talk page have inspired you to register an account, and to weigh in here before you've even made a single edit with the account. I think more people should register and voice their opinions. It's also great that you already seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, as many new users are not, and it takes them some time to understand how Wikipedia works re: reliable sources and all. Rockypedia (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the insinuation you're making. To be clear, I've never felt the need to register to add to a Wikipedia discussion because I've genuinely never encountered an article that made me cringe this hard after having read the first few sentences. I'm only familiar with the policies insofar as I've read through a few Talk pages over the years (including this one) -- if I've made some serious gaffe, please let me know (taking your comments at face value). I do find the wording of "reliable sources" curious, as that in and of itself is subjective -- although I'll leave that aside for the time being. My primary disagreement is with characterizing someone's beliefs as something other than which they themselves espouse, especially when these beliefs are inarguably negative and highly contentious. Calling someone a "white supremacist" is equivalent to calling someone a "hateful bigot". I genuinely find the attitudes here just as worrisome. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to spread beliefs, by anyone. The impartiality of Wikipedia is something else I hold in the highest of regards. Dr.Novick (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Spencer does this professionally -- what would one expect to call him instead? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying Wikipedia should present people only in the light of the views they want to publicly claim for themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. That said, I have seen no evidence to convince me that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist beyond news outlets asserting as much without any justification beyond "he's a white activist". I have no doubts that he is a white nationalist, but those are two distinctly different ideologies. As I said previously, nuance in this space is very important. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You hold the impartiality of Wikipedia in the highest of regards? What are you smoking? You need to come back down to earth, my Wikipedia-loving friend. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but I recall when Wikipedia first became well known as one of the first open source knowledge databases. I feel strongly about decentralized/open source systems. I realize that Wikipedia may not always be truly neutral, but that doesn't mean that, collectively, we shouldn't make every effort to make it so. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's give our new colleague a chance. (A hale and hearty welcome to Wikipedia, by the way.) The article cites numerous RS that identify Spencer as a white nationalist supremacist. If you have RS that say otherwise, by all means, share them. And since you're new, here's a timesaver: Stormfront and similar sites are not RS, so try to avoid sources of that caliber. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I will take your comment at face value and say thank you -- but your Stormfront remark is hard to not take tongue-in-cheek. Without getting too tin-foil-hat-y, I'm suspect of much of the main stream media nowadays. Calling Fox News or the Huffington Post 'legitimate' news sources simply because they're wide spread is something I have a very hard time taking seriously, as an example. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: I do not disagree that he is a white nationalist -- he identifies as such. I vehemently disagree that he is a white supremacist, however. As I've said elsewhere, these are most certainly not the same thing. These people need to be understood before both sides get completely out of control (more so than they already are). Snide hyperbole on a person's wikipedia page is most certainly not going to help matters. I really hope people start taking this entire situation we find ourselves in more seriously. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Eh, Dr.Novick, "These people need to be understood"? Do they need a hug? And, eh, which side is out of control? I do believe that people should take this entire situation more seriously, yes, but attempting to "understand" white supremacists is not what I had in mind. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, you've studied Wikipedia, so you know it's all about reliable sources, not editors' viewpoints. If you have RS backing up your claim, present them. Otherwise, to be blunt, it's irrelevant. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
maybe it would be better to discuss this on the RS noticeboa..... oh wait! wp:beans Edaham (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" are most certainly editors' viewpoints. A gedanken is in order: Consider if one of the hallowed RS came to the Wiki and edited articles, directly. Would that not be nearly in violation of the NPOV policies, if not actually? What is certain is that, in all cases of article writing, paticularly related to philosophy, the nature and quality of the source of information is what is judged, and factual information is invariably where a bulk of the value is. Turn the Wiki into an editorial board for all I care. The critical readers already know it is. Do it with facts, though, with a good dictionary by your side, and write well. I'd get behind that.140.254.77.235 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Calling this a gedanken is downright silly. Wikipedia deals with this specific occurrence all the time, and this isn't anything remotely new. Many, many published authors contribute to Wikipedia. We have multiple Nobel prize winners editing both inside and outside their fields of expertise. These editors are also required to cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, not a publisher of original research. This is a core aspect of encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. There is subjectivity involved in identifying which sources are reliable and which are not, but this is less subjective than relying on self-described experts to figure out the 'facts'. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No doubt it's common, and while the scenario is obviously reasonable to you, it is apparently not to the person to whom I gave my comment. Subjectivity is guaranteed for these types of articles, and most of the content is OR at some point. What is more silly than a gedanken's being called a gedanken, however, is the assertion that a suggestion to adhere to lexical aids to define our words ("supremacist" vs "nationalist") makes me a person who is asserting myself as a "self-described" expert. I merely reach for my lexicon. It requires no expertise. To ignore it and rely on the extreme depth of one's humble opinion regarding the definitions of words is to advertise one's expertise. Also, you should read old encyclopedias. Many articles had single authors who were regarded as experts in those subjects, often because of their original research. There's no reason to fear OR. It's the unscholarly OR we don't want, which this article reflects in several respects.140.254.77.235 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Your assumptions about the person you are replying to are presumptuous, and also incorrect about Wikipedia's core approach. Wikipedia:No original research doesn't have the kind of qualifiers you're describing. The distinction between "scholarly" and "unscholarly" OR is subjective. Since it's opposed to Wikipedia's philosophy, using that here, in this article, would be treating this article as an exception. This would be substantially more subjective than using reliable sources.
There are also other problems with your comments, such as the extremely close overlap between 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacism' as defined by academics in their full context. Breaking down terms into their component words and then using a dictionary to define those individual words devoid of context is simplistic and unhelpful. Since these and other related points have already been discussed to death on this and other talk pages, this really doesn't need to be discussed again, however. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Another idea?

I also wondered about the first line. It's perfectly true... yet it seems... somehow not like an encyclopedia should begin. What about:

"Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white supremacist views." (I would prefer).

Or: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white nationalist views. Spencer rejects the label "white supremacist," and prefers to describe himself as an identitarian, though he is commonly understood to be a white supremacist." ...

Hm, then this seems to call into question the label. I think it's important to make clear that this is what he is.

Apart from that matter, can we remove the picture? I would prefer that we don't have a picture of this person, in case that is possible. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum, and there has been a clear and persistent consensus to describe the guy as a white supremacist, as supported by our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not "an organizer and speaker who espouses white supremacist views"? Wouldn't that be better? It's simply about how it sounds when you read it. This sounds like a slow high-school student writing a shit essay. "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox, November 12, 1934)[2]:136–7 is an American criminal, convicted mass murderer, and former cult leader who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s." See? That is how you write first sentences. How boring would it be if it simply said "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox, November 12, 1934)[2]:136–7 is an American murderer." You kidding me? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Someone who espouses white supremacist views is a white supremacist. You're just playing with brevity. What you are proposing sounds like editorializing and constitutes a slightly more subtle and vaguer way of distancing him from the manner in which he's most notably described. Given the weight of consensus and the number of times we have had to restate or reinforce it, I propose we write an FAQ for this page (and other's like it), which might save editors time when the next person comes along and starts an RfC or goes running to whatever notice board to re-air this dead horse. Edaham (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Edaham. The encyclopedic, neutral approach is to call a spade a spade. Anything else is obfuscation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
If Spencer or his "associates" aren't happy with the label, let him win a defamation suit against Newsweek, CNN, et al. Until then, he's a white supremacist.Scaleshombre (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
No skin off my nose. I do suggest a FAQ to make sure no other editors suggest language improvements that bring the introductory sentence in line with other articles. I also hope you good chaps make every other Wikipedia article begin with a single declarative sentence. That would spread the joy. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
You mean like "Charles Milles Manson is an American criminal"? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Or "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender in the United States?" Sorry, but there is no dark overseer of Wikipedia who makes sure everything is 100% consistent. I nominate...you, o snarky one! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, but this is just silly and a waste of time. I think every section that starts with "Snopes is a far-left website that promotes blah blah" should be removed immediately per WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thanks. I'm glad you approve. I've never written one before and think it would have to be based on consensus. So far the two of us are in favor. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on the matter though. Edaham (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I think it's worth it NOT to have an FAQ. I AGF with most editors, but on the off chance that an actual Spencer minion comes here looking to -- ahem -- whitewash their bro, let them waste as many hours possible reading the archives and/or tripping all over themselves as they get tangled up in the minutiae of WP policy. Better they expend their energies here than on the street. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a bit of irony now and then, but Wikipedia was not designed as bait to lure misguided youths away from socially detrimental activities. Edaham (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Fully agree. But if they happen to wander over by themselves every so often, nothing wrong with watching them bang their heads against the walls for a bit. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many people have tried to point this out. There appears to be a small group of partisan people who have an inexplicable ax to grind. People on the left will already know this information from DNC talking points. Everyone else will see that it is partisan and stop reading after the first sentence. I don't know if they just simply don't understand the question or if they assume just by asking it that we are Spencer Supporters and therefore racist and therefore not worthy of an honest answer. My only guess is that maybe they hope that Richard Spencer will stumble on it and become convicted and change his ways! I would encourage you to look at the archive links on the talk pages. The debates will reveal a lot of useful information on Spencer but a lot of useful information on how intellectual bubbles are formed and reinforced and perceived as "truth." But, as the gate-keepers pointed out, you are not going to change their mind. S2pid80it (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You've spent a month posting on this talk page repeating Spencer's own right-wing talking points on how victimized he is and trying to make his article more flattering to Spencer's preferred terminology. If it's important to you for people not to think you're a "Spencer Supporter", this was a mistake.
As for the idea that these changes would invite more people to read the entire article, that's not even remotely close to Wikipedia's goals, nor would that be a valid tactic if it were. The goal is to summarize his notability according to reliable sources. These sources overwhelmingly emphasize his extremism and racism, even if the specific language may differ slightly. If we start downplaying this in the lede in order to make the article more friendly for people who... believe that only leftists hate white supremacy? This sure sounds like political correctness to me. If accuracy is the goal, he is a white supremacist. In this case, simple language is the most neutral way to handle this. All of those many discussions in the archive you've read support this. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@S2pid80it:, one more time just for luck: if you want to change the cited words in the lede while satisfying due weight, and RS you have these options 1) (this is the most 100% certain way) go to lots of reliable sources and get them to say something else about him - you might have to get the subject of the article to visit a few orphanages first. 2)go to the talk page of manual of style or npov etc and propose that those pages include "white supremacist" among the "words to watch" section, with some kind of guideline evectively limiting or curtailing the use of the word (inspite of the fact it's used everywhere). There's no partisan/liberal/leftist sneaky thing going on. There's a group of people who think we should use what ever words we find in a preponderance of sources based on wp:due and another group of people who think that certain words are so nasty that they contravene wp:blp guidelines and shouldn't be used as they are too value-laden. People in either of these two groups who state policy as their basis for altering the article will have their comments taken seriously by people like closing admins or uninvolved editors who contribute to RfCs. Anyone who even thinks that this is a political discussion is almost certainly approaching the debate from some kind of political standpoint, which is misaligned with Wikipedia's objectives. There aren't any 'gate keepers' in this debate. Essentially the argument boils down to a perceived conflict between our policies on RS and censorship and our strong policies protecting biographies of living persons. Anyone who brought either their politics or accusations of partisanship to this debate can go....wp:civil....up a tree. Edaham (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Richard Spencer has repeatedly opened his mouth and publicly demonstrated that he holds white supremacist and anti-Semitic viewpoints. Unless he publicly repudiates those views at any point, Wikipedia will continue to define Spencer just as he has defined himself: a notable white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why on earth should one have to find articles and "get them to call him" an activist who supports white nationalist and white supremacist views just to have the VERY BEGINNING of the article changed to not start out as "he's a white supremacist". As stated, this creates a very biased first impression to the article, shifting its image from one that's describing him to one that's labeling a still-living individual. Starting the article by describing him as an activist who supports white nationalist and white supremacist views doesn't actually alter what he is, it merely better specifies what he is while coming across as a little bit less biased. He's described several times within the article as an activist, and it seems that this is the most descriptive term for him. He's an activist who supports white nationalist ideals including some white supremacist ones.
White nationalism is an ideology subject to significant activism, and white supremacy is a branch of white nationalism. Saying that it's fine to go with "white supremacist" because that's a kind of white nationalist, as someone above said, is as ridiculous as saying it's fine to use the term "gem" instead of "mineral" because a gem is a kind of mineral (usually), completely ignoring the fact that not all minerals are gems or are purely gems. Like that, Spencer apparently is not "purely" a white supremacist, as there are enough aspects he rejects that he finds it inaccurate and rejects the term. Yes, he supports some ideals that may be more aligned with white supremacy than white nationalism, but it's really then a matter of just how much of the ideology a person has to support to be identified as such. And either way, opening up by saying he's something he has apparently denounced seems a little biased compared to stating that he's an individual who is associated with or supports some parts of the groups.
This is not to say that I am a supporter of his by any means. I'm no SJW but I still find his ideology to be absolutely vile. But that doesn't mean I have to disagree with the assessment of this article as appearing biased and lacking in the impartiality expected of an encyclopedia, especially when discussing a living person.98.197.193.213 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Most reliable sources call him a white supremacist, not an activist. Our neutrality policy basically says we need to fairly represent the reliable sources. It's pretty much that simple. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors might also be interested in this CNN article: "Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to Richard Spencer a white rights activist. We have updated the story to more accurately refer to him as a white supremacist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking Engagements are not relevant?

I don't understand this revert which removed this well-sourced material:

The University of Cincinnati is going to permit him to be speak following a threatened a lawsuit. The president of the University of Cincinnati wrote a letter stating that Spencer has a First Amendment right to freedom of speech.[1][2][3] Ohio State University was also threatened with a similar lawsuit but refused to let him speak.[4]

References

  1. ^ http://local12.com/news/local/uc-decides-to-allow-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-to-speak-on-campus
  2. ^ http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2017/10/13/uc-president-his-hate-only-makes-our-love-you-stronger/763445001/
  3. ^ http://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/20979204/morning-news-uc-officials-mum-on-potential-white-nationalist-speaker-ohio-reps-vote-against-hurricane-relie
  4. ^ http://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-state-rejects-richard-spencer-university-cincinnati-will-let-him-speak#stream/0

Numerous other national sources have talked about his speaking engagements at various universities and the potential or actual violence that comes with them:


Some of these are already covered. I am unclear why the speaking engagements with similar lawsuits and controversy in Ohio are not relevant.

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor that reverted you made it clear in his summary: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." If, after he speaks there, there's significant coverage of the event in reliable sources, maybe there's a reason to add a sentence about the speech. Rockypedia (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the lawsuits are notable as highly unusual, which is why they are covered by several reliable third-party sources. I agree with you that we don't want to turn into this article into an advertising platform for his speaking engagements, but this is different. With those lawsuits, he is setting a precedent for future so-called "hate speakers" on college campuses. Thus, it seems due for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My main point is that we should still wait for an outcome or extended coverage of these lawsuits; otherwise we're still treating Wikipedia as a newspaper. Rockypedia (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
With those lawsuits, he is setting a precedent for future so-called "hate speakers" on college campuses. Unless you have a working time machine, you can't actually know that: WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging Calton, the editor who deleted the content in question. (This should have been done already...) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What Rockypedia said. I thought I was being as clear as can be, though perhaps I should have thrown in WP:CRYSTAL to boot: how, exactly, do you know that a FUTURE speaking engagement -- or almost any future event, really -- is actually significant? Short answer: you don't and you can't. If it happens AND it's in some way significant to his biography, go to town. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Granting or denying permission to speak in the future is not a future event--it is a current event. So is the threat of a lawsuit or the filing of a lawsuit. The arrangement to allow white supremacists to speak on university campuses is controversial, which is why it is in the news throughout the country and why there are protests. We do not delete all references to budgets, which detail future spending.
There is now even more substantial coverage on the his plan to speak in Cincinnati:
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
So what? Dig up has many redistributed wire-service stories as you like, but you haven't even TRIED to address the actual objections. Want to give that a shot? --Calton | Talk 05:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I brought up the "precedent" argument to explain why the lawsuits matter, and why they should be included (besides weight of RS). You are focusing on the events and we are focusing on the lawsuits. The lawsuits are not Crystalball, they are in the here and now, which is why we believe they are due for inclusion. Inside Higher Ed has another interesting article:
Where I probably agree with you is that he is getting too much content in reliable third-party sources for his terrible ideas. (And preventing him from speaking is making things worse, as he was a complete nobody when he was invited on campuses by Youth for Western Civilization in 2010-2011.) But we have to reflect the weight of reliable third-party sources about what's happened and what's happening. Or we could AfD his entire article as undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ^I agree with a good portion of Zigzig's analysis. As for what must be addressed:
  • Reliable Sources: The most important factor that must be considered for any material in Wikipedia is the extent to which is it is covered in reliable secondary sources. That's the gold standard for inclusion that every serious Wikipedian should know and follow. The suggestion that having numerous independent sources covering this is not important shocks me.
  • WP:NOTNEWS does not say you can't cover current events and, in fact, says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." Adding a few sentences does not unduly bias the article and puts it in due proportion to his other similar speaking events at other universities.
  • WP:CRYSTAL This has been explained too. The sentences I proposed do not attempt to predict whether he will speak or whether there will be violence, they simply document the current controversial FACT of being given permission (or not being given permission) to speak, that he threatened a lawsuits, etc.
The included coverage of the MSU lawsuit is hardly different than what I proposed adding. The only difference between MSU and the two Ohio universities is that the lawsuit is already filed. Yet that lawsuit is not settled yet--no one is accusing this unsettled lawsuit of WP:CRYSTAL. I believe some of the significant coverage states that the reason Univ. of Cincinnati (U.C.) caved into the Spencer's demands to speak was because of the threat of a similar lawsuit, which U.C. might lose. The fact that the Auburn event (and the violence associated with it) was is not covered in the article seems odd to me, because there was more coverage of that actual speaking event (Google search) than of the MSU lawsuit (Google search) of a refused event. I do not see any consistency in the standards being used to decide what should or should not be in this article.
In that sense of strange standards, I tend to agree with Zigzig that the subject of this article probably has gained significance almost entirely because the media turned him into a big deal. For better or for worse, we do not control the media; we just reflect what reliable secondary sources say, whether we like their biases, due weight, etc. or not.
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no dog in this fight, but I'll point out that David's original edit started with, "The University of Cincinnati is going to permit him to be speak [sic]...," and was therefore inconsistent with his comments here that we're talking about events that already happened. Perhaps if the proposed content was re-written to focus on events that have already occurred (or are already occurring) then that will address everyone's concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I would never has said "going to let him speak" instead of "permitting him to speak" if I had any idea it would be removed under the claim of WP:CRYSTAL. My choice echoed language found in many of the articles ("to allow"; "will allow"; etc.) Probably the choice of that tense by the author(s) was because the President's letter does not say Spencer unequivocally has permission to speak, giving the administration some leeway to block his speaking in the future. However, anyone who reads the letter, quotes, and articles can see the clear current intention of U.C. that they are presently allowing him and presently not objecting to his future speaking event. Like the threat of a lawsuit (which describes contingent threat of future behavior) this is a current action of expression of particular intention of the University, which contrasts with OSU's position. If either university changes their position, the article should be revised with the new information. I think simply changing the language from "is going to permit him to be speak" to "is permitting him to speak" would be sufficient. Do we agree? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that Florida's governor has declared a state of emergency, which is attracting quite a lot of media attention, this might be worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, I agree. Do you want to make draft changes--possibly directly to the article? I do think the lawsuit with Auburn and the event that followed should be added as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No, first I'd rather get a rough consensus with input from Rockypedia, Calton, and any others who might have thoughts on it. It's coming up on Thursday so the whole WP:CRYSTAL thing will resolve itself shortly, but I do think the level of coverage now that the state of emergency has been declared warrants a mention in the article. However, I would rather achieve some agreement here before barging in and re-adding contested content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the state of emergency declaration probably raises the profile of the event significantly; that WaPo article is a good source to start with. Rockypedia (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I've added it to the article, along with a brief mention of the amount of money spent on security and the outcome of his speech, both of which received heavy news coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of "Views" sections

How should the "Views" section be ordered? A new section was just added, placing his views on the Iraq war at the top. I'm going to reorder it, but it'd be nice to get some additional feedback so this isn't just my own decision alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In proportion to the WP:RS coverage of the views:
(1) Race
(2) Women
(3)-(4) either order Trump; Homosexuality
(5) Iraq War
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, I would change the title "Race" to "Race and Ethnicity." They are not the same. ("Ethnicity vs Race - Difference and Comparison | Diffen". Retrieved 2017-10-20.) --David Tornheim (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a question of what source to use to decide upon an order and how to present that order from an MOS and BLPSTYLE perspective. Some things to watch:
  • Weighing up sources to derive an order. To avoid Synth/OR, we shouldn't perform our own research on mentions of this subject by number of google hits per category. This might yield results, but we risk tainting them by making personal decisions on search terms etc.
  • We shouldn't be too specific when listing these topics. If we can write this section as a flowing section of prose rather than making it seem like a list of views on each subject, we can avoid making it look like the subject headings were decided upon (i.e. synthesized) by our editors.
  • We should probably take a single source, which deals with some of his views, and then present the material in our article in the order used in that source, that way we are basing our decisions on some actual tangible source material.
I'll add to this thread with some suggestions later.
Edaham (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no requirement that the ordering be based on how the sources do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
there's no requirement. It's just a good idea. You're welcome. Edaham (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Some good ideas by Edaham. I certainly prefer a good narrative. I do find it interesting the issue of "making it look like the subject headings were decided upon (i.e. synthesized) by our editors." Of course, the people who write articles about his views are doing the same thing, especially relevant is the now-deleted sentence of his "refusal to renounce Hitler." There is no question that he has views that no one is writing about, some which may be far more important to him and his overall belief system than what is being presented in the media (or possibly even in his speeches or writings). I'm only saying this to point out that there really is no "correct" way to organize or categorize a person's views--this is all too familiar to me from studying intellectual giants like Descartes, Plato, Nietzsche, etc. Any choice will be subjective, and include labels the subject might find deeply offensive (e.g. many philosophers did not want to be labelled Existentialists; Alice Walker did not like being categorized in African-American fiction; Salman Rushdie did not want to have a nationality assigned to his writing). Regardless of this point, I do tend to agree with Edaham that our choice of organization should reflect the WP:RS if that is possible. I'm not sure it is. Sorry if everyone reading this is already well aware of this issue. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestive wording

Just a minor concern. It feels rather off, sort of deliberately suggestive, to write about Spencer's opinion on Hitler the way this article does. Stating that he called things Hitler did despicable "without elaborating on which things he was referring to" is seriously suggestive. It deliberately raises the question of whether he is OK with various horrible things Hitler did. Merely stating that he said Hitler had "done things that I think are despicable" on its own impresses the general vagueness without pointing out that he didn't specify. If, in the interview, he specifically refused to go into specifics then it might be better to state that he was pressed to be more specific but refused. This makes it more clear that his lack of specificity was deliberate. But if he simply didn't specify, pointing out this lack of specificity is unnecessary and highly suggestive. If the journalist report this was taken from included this, then it should be specifically quoted to make it clear that this is a reference to a statement by another party. Otherwise, deeming it noteworthy to declare "he didn't specify" raises questions on the impartiality of the article. Plenty of people have said that Hitler and various other people have done horrible things and it's not considered noteworthy to mention that they didn't get into specifics after all.98.197.193.213 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The language reflects what is in the WP:RS provided. It is, however, just one article, and appears consistent with the New York Times article where supporters give the Nazi-salute and he uses the phrase "Hail [President 45]." If you have other WP:RS that shows that he condemns Hitler and/or the KKK, let's see it. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That was not my point. He's denounced a number of aspects of white supremacy according to this article, such as the subjugation/enslavement of other races, but even if that is so, it's irrelevant to the way the description is stated. The point is that the very inclusion of a statement that he didn't specify what acts he did or didn't agree with creates a speculative implication, a suggestion that his omission was deliberate. If this was the case then it should be noted as a referenced point, perhaps even reworded to state that he "refused" to be more specific. If it wasn't the case then this amounts to nothing more than an editor wanting to make sure that people know Spencer hasn't directly denounced specific acts in said interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.193.213 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
"He's denounced a number of aspects of white supremacy according to this article, such as the subjugation/enslavement of other races." Not true. Show us a quote from the article that he says enslavement or lynching are wrong. Everything I read in the article appears consistent with a White Supremacist outlook and belief that non-Anglo-Saxons are inferior to Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxons somehow have a "right" to own "their homeland" of America, and that non-whites should be made to leave and that this might involve violence. Sounds quite a bit like Hitler to me.
"[H]is omission was deliberate." It was. He was being evasive by saying, "I won't play this game." That's what the writer is pointing out. When asked what "despicable things" Hitler did, he won't answer. Reasonable people would point out--without hesitation--the Holocaust.
The language we use matches what is in the article. If you have other WP:RS showing his criticism of white supremacy, Nazi's, Hitler, the KKK, etc. let's see it. I feel like you want to re-write this article for the author based on re-analysis of the facts, which is WP:OR. I don't see you getting much traction from relying exclusively on this article, which paints a very unflattering picture of Spencer. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit more sympathetic to 98.197.193.213's point. However all we can do is relay what the reliable sources are saying, and I don't believe the reliable sources answer 98.197.193.213's question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this audio recording of the interview will answer the OP's question. I personally have little interest in listening to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the question? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I listened to 44:40-50:00. I do now agree with 98.197.193.213 that the WP:RS under discussion was a bit biased or misleading in its representation of that part of the discussion, in key parts it left out. Although it is is safe to conclude that Spencer did not wish to completely "condemn" Hilter and the KKK, he indicated disapproval of both lynching and the Holocaust, and said he believes in non-violence. From reading the WP:RS under discussion, I had the false impression that he also refused to condemn lynching or the Holocaust--I prefer we not mislead readers in that way. My guess from listening to the exchange is that Spencer approves of Hitler's and the KKK's beliefs in white superiority, which is why he did not want to completely condemn either. I might be open to a revision to the language of the WP:lede to be more like the body. I'm open to other suggested revised language.
FYI. Spencer said at 43:50, "In the United State, when people say, 'the American people', 'Are you going to stick up for us?' I do think--whether they know it or not--they are assuming white people." That as well as his other comments confirm my acceptance of the label "white supremacist" that 98.197.193.213 is opposed to. Spencer did also say he was opposed to white separatism; however, he simultaneously seems to advocate for an all-white America. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Wire isn't reliable, and this is a great example of why. But I haven't managed to find a reliable secondary source that covers the interview. Can anyone else? If not, should we citing The Daily Caller source directly? I hate citing The Daily Caller, which isn't reliable as a secondary source, but in this case it could be used as a primary source for the recording itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If we can't find a reliable secondary source, perhaps we should use the SoundCloud link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I would go further than this. Given that Spencer has specifically denied being a "white supremacist", the same logic appears to apply; in the absence of some statement of his that confirms the dictionary definition of "supremacist", and keeping in mind the dictionary definition of "supreme", it seems to me a direct contradiction of his statement by him is necessary, or, at least, something substantially MORE than just the weakly supported opinion of some writer, group of writers, or media personalities, before the assertion of "supremacist" can be used. A "guess" is not enough, and a thought that his reference to the American people likely included only whites is really not enough, either; I am frankly very disappointed that anyone would feel that such thinking would be seriously entertained by anyone here. This nation exists as a consequence of enormous immigration from all over the globe by persons of every color and creed over four hundred years; no sane person would believe that a reference to Americans implied only one color absent total ignorance or a substantial political motive. Various groups supported the creation of racial nations on various grounds in the past, and a few such nations still exist, and although times have changed, I can't recall any of the people involved ever having been labeled racial supremacists at ANY time, then or since. I believe the entire purpose of such labeling to be entirely political, and a basis for denying Spencer any speech rights at all. As far as I am concerned, this labeling does NOT support the denial of speech rights, but it is clear that some institutions believe otherwise, and Wikipedia's contribution to that support is to be avoided. It reflects very poorly on some of the persons involved, who would never support, for example, any theory that the Muslim religion perceived its beliefs as supremacist, though in fact some of the leaders of that religion quite readily espouse just that view, and are quite open about it.2001:5B0:47C4:D078:C818:5F20:7573:33D8 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "white supremacist", we've already heard and discussed all this before, the IP is introducing nothing new at all, and nothing has changed. I've said more times than I can count that we've discussed this more times than I can count. Please look through the talk pages' archives for some discussions of exactly this issue, but also note that there are plenty more where that come from on other talk pages and notice boards.
White supremacy is broad concept which is studied in depth by academics (which Spencer is not), commented on by experts (which Spencer is not), and reported on by journalists (which Spencer is not). Trying to muddle the definition of the phrase "white supremacy" by chopping it up into its component words is a distraction at best. Likewise with the bit about unnamed hypothetical historical nations. He is still a white supremacist according to a constantly increasing number of reliable sources, and that's what matters to Wikipedia. Personal speculating about the motives for (accurately) labeling his positions do not belong here. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Thanks for that exposition. I would have hated to have tried to respond to that! It would be nice to have hard links to old discussions like this, especially for perennial issues, objections, etc. I have seen FAQ's created before, but I do not like those, as they are like separate articles within the talk page and are biased to only include the majority opinion. Hard links to old discussions (hard meaning--unchanging and not to be archived) are less likely to suffer from bias than hard summaries of past discussions, which are found in FAQs. Hard links to old discussions let readers review the discussions (including minority opinions)and conclude for themselves how any consensus was formed, who said what, and what the merits of the reasoning were, including the dissent. It is more work for the reader than a FAQ, of course, but I really do feel that FAQs are inappropriate on talk pages, except to answer the question: Where was this discussed before? Your summary is fine, because it is a soft summary, and you are clearly the author of the summary: It is not written with Wikivoice authority, like the FAQs I have seen. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL

These groups have been proven to be highly inaccurate and AWFUL sources. There’s plenty of info out there about Spencer without using those two messes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.105.160 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're an unbiased authority. They have not been "proven" anything of the sort as far as Wikipedia is concerned. They are both generally considered reliable for the topic of hate-movements and extremism in the U.S., which both apply to Spencer. This has already been discussed repeatedly, in excruciating detail, at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell. Thanks again. Please see my comment above about perennial objections and how we might treat them with hardlinks to past discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

How are you supposed to reach a consensus?

remove from log. Thanks Edaham (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When the discussion is always censored by a gang of Leftist Antifa thugs? LiberatorLX (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks on other editors will surely result in you being blocked from editing, LiberatorLX. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a opinion blog or social media site where people can spout invective at will. So, cease and desist now. This is not negotiable. It is a formal warning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This editor responded immediately with overtly racist insults, so I have blocked them indefinitely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_B._Spencer/Archive_3&oldid=1137156681"