Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Level of detail in lead section... again

Steeletrap, there appears to be a general consensus in the previous discussions that portions of the lead section are too detailed and that some of that detail needs to be moved into the body and summarized in the lead. Are you willing to help with that effort, or are you going to work against it? There have been a number of discussions on this page about your recent edits since June 13, but haven't participated in any of them. It looks like you've grown tired of defending your edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Um no, there is no such consensus. You were admonished by admins for your previous edits on this page after no one agreed with you. Steeletrap (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

in the spirit of compromise, I have cut down the section considerably. Please see the talk page for a discussion of the new lede before reverting. Steeletrap (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This unilateral decision making process is disruptive, and you continue to selectively add content that isn't supported by the sources and is cherry-picked to paint Spencer most negative light possible. For example, one of many BLP violations here. You added that universities called Spencer a menace to public safety, apparently attempting to cite this source (but restoring a broken link). The source does not say that. It says the request represented a substantial risk to public safety. Not the person. This is a critical distinction because the universities understand that the safety risk isn't Spencer the person (who despite his hateful words isn't physically violent) but the risk of violence by other people after his speeches, like in Charlottesville. This isn't rocket science, and your blatant POV pushing will get you blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Any reasonably conscientious reader could have inferred from the text that the public safety risk specifically mentioned in RS results from Spencer's hateful words, not his personal acts of physical violence. Incidentally please stop pushing your POV that Spencer is nonviolent. Whether rhetorical neo-Nazism and calls for ethnic cleansing of nonwhites is 'nonviolent' (even with no direct acts of assault) is your opinion, not a fact. Steeletrap (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge difference, a BLP difference, between cancelling a public speech because of a substantial risk to public safety and saying the person is a menace to public safety. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Why am I even explaining this? If you cannot understand the difference and you insist on adding inferences to our articles then you should not be editing here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is getting truly absurd. I never suggested adding anything to our article about Spencer being non-violent. All I propose is that we...um... stick to the sources? Can you do that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to list that his presence on campus was perceived as a public safety risk. That's what RS say was the rationale for shutting him down. While I am baffled that you think the previous version implied that Spencer was taking slugs at people in his speaking tour, I am fine with examining alternative text. But we are not about to whitewash the fact that his presence on campus posed a public safety risk. Steeletrap (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• While it's not closed yet, the RFC, above, on the size of the lead seems to be leaning towards "no, the lead is not too long", so I feel you're misrepresenting the consensus. If anything Steeltrap is going above and beyond by offering to try and compromise by trimming it slightly regardless. I definitely disagree with the assertion that the lead needs to be cut simply for the sake of reducing its size or that there is any sort of consensus in support of that position. As near as I can tell, the "effort" you are referring to is dead in the water - certainly it seems extremely unlikely it could gain consensus support at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

[Y]our blatant POV pushing will get you blocked. Nope. You fooled WP:AE once, but you won't fool them twice. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018

Just wanted to add a note that Congressman Zinke has received donations from Richard Spencer, a according to FEC documents for the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. I believe Zinke returned a 2014 donation of 500, but unsure about the second donation of 500 in 2016. 173.224.154.241 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a a primary source, there's no secondary coverage I can find, and it's small potatoes, at best. So, no. --Calton | Talk 22:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over section titles

I'm curious what the actual justification is for edit warring over a white-washed section title, as seen here. @Anticitizen 98: You are aware of the DS sanctions, both on BLP issues and on American Politics, and you are really pushing the limits here. Please explain yourself on talk. As I already explained in my edit summary: Spencer only advocates for white ethnonationalism, and endlessly promotes the "white race". Your change muddies this to make it appear as if Spencer advocates for multiple forms of ethnonationalism. The "empire" language is taken from Spencer's own words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Recently he has stated repeatedly he criticizes ethnonationalism and believes minorities should remain in the country. Speaking of empire, he has reiterated that many examples of supranational structures have had large minorities within them and is inevitable. If you need a source I could find one. Prefer using actual terminology rather than a quote of Spener's as a title.Anticitizen 98 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Recently he has stated repeatedly he criticizes ethnonationalism and believes minorities should remain in the country

he has reiterated that many examples of supranational structures have had large minorities within them and is inevitable

Prefer using actual terminology rather than a quote of Spener's as a title. You have already violated the sanctions twice (1 revert per 24 hours). Your preference is not an acceptable excuse for this, and you cannot plead ignorance: the notice is at the top of this page and you were explicitly alerted to the applicability of such sanctions back in April.

Finally, please indent your comments properly. See here for an example/practice page where you can see how indenting works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on size of lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure The responses, after more than a month, run very close, with the No side having a tiny arithmetic majority.
The question posed is simple, neutral, and straightforward, and thus in accordance to WP:RFCST. No objections to it being somehow wrongly tabled can be accepted.
The question can only be interpreted as being asked within the context of Wikipedia policy; it cannot be assessed on the basis of personal taste ("too long?", "too short?", etc), since relevant policy already exists: The article, as it currently stands, contains roughly some forty thousand characters, with number of spaces included in the count (roughly around thirty-five thousand excluding spaces). According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, the recommended length of an article with more than 30,000 characters is three or four paragraphs. Admittedly this is trying for a ratio between apples to oranges ("paragraphs" to "characters") but a reasonable examination of the currently extant four paragraphs of the lead section reveals that they are not extraordinary in length. The question therefore can only be answered with a No (the article lead is not "too long").
There were many suggestions and comments about what the lead section should contain but text quality and content were not, of course, a concern of this RfC and should be discussed separately. -The Gnome (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Question: Is the article lead too long for the length of the article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes

• Yes, way too long. WP:MOSLEAD states plainly: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic...As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." This speaks for itself. Not to mention the article subject's notability is as a fringe figure who was relatively unknown until late 2016, and even at this point, he's nowhere near a household name. He has notability, but certainly not the kind of notability or life of "deeds" that would make for enough to justify the size of lead that exists in this article currently. A "concise overview" of the article subject's life equals about a thimble full of information. That's not what we have here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a not hugely too long, but some trimming is appropriate. Two areas need to be cut down. (1) First is the neo-Nazi paragraph, which can be written more concisely and bluntly to say he's a neo-Nazi (with no milquetoast "described as" qualifier), he's given the Nazi salute in public and given neo-Nazi speeches. A bit more than that is appropriate but is it really leadworthy that one of his neo-Nazi salutes was to Milo at a karaoke bar? Really? (2) The second area is about Charlottesville and the fallout. For the purposes of the lead section can't we just say that the rally turned violent? And has the lawsuit against him gained so much attention to warrant inclusion in a 4-paragraph summary of his life? Let alone specifically naming the plaintiffs' attorneys?! Look at the cited sources. The attorneys' names were only included in a single article because they were quoted. I mean seriously. Now, I raised these specific concerns in two previous threads and was ignored. Then editors who were watching the page object that this RfC isn't specific enough. I'm feeling stonewalled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Broadly, Yes, but a) it doesn't matter how I vote, as there is not a hope in hell of this RfC settling anything since it makes no specific recommendations b) It could well be the lack of clarity and coherence rather than the 'raw' length which is the underlying problem, but trimming might be a good step towards 'clearing out the stables'. I partially endorse Dr. Fleischman's point that the 'neo-Nazi' connection could be more concise and might be more 'punchy' without naming instances (Milo salute?) - Charlotteville and Spencer's role there could be clearer and European bans seems very muddled. Unless there is some clear authorative source for WHY we in Europe don't want him - it would probably be better to simply record the existence of the bans in the lead - and leave the details for the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Qualified Yes, the portion of the introduction about Hungary and being banned from entering various European nations should be moved as they don't belong in the leadZubin12 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, much too long... none of the following needs to be in the lead. This content needs to be in the relevant sections of the article, instead.

In early 2016, Spencer was filmed giving the Nazi salute to Milo Yiannopoulos in a karaoke bar.[13] In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews.[8] In response to his cry "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!", a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis' Nuremberg rallies.[14][15] His appropriation of Nazi rhetoric on these and various other occasions has attracted the scorn and ridicule of the press.[citation needed]
 but has been sued in federal court by attorneys Roberta Kaplan and Karen Dunn, who allege that Spencer acted as a "gang boss" at Charlottesville and incited the Charlottesville killing.[19][20] Since then, several of Spencer's speaking engagements on university campuses were denied or cancelled, with university officials citing the violence in Charlottesville. Spencer sued Michigan State University[21] and threatened legal action against the University of Florida. After a string of cancellations and disruptions of his events in 2018, Spencer suspended his college tour indefinitely.[22]
 While in Hungary, Spencer was mocked by the Hungarian Népszabadság for his claim to be a "racial European," which the newspaper said had no basis in European history; Spencer had dismissed the more distinctively Hungarian (as opposed to white) racial identity as a "fantasy," and called for "European unity" through a new polity resembling the Roman Empire.[27] In the aftermath of the controversy, nationalist president Viktor Orbán banned and condemned Spencer.[28] The current government of Poland—often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state—has also banned[29] and formally condemned Spencer, citing Spencer's Nazi rhetoric and the Nazis' genocide of Slavic "Untermenschen" during World War II.[30]

Peter K Burian (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) agree with Dr.F for the most part. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No

• No? Per below this doesn't seem like a great way to fix the problem. Is this is really just about the template:lead too long tag? If so, actionable changes need to be proposed. "Too long" isn't actionable for an article this controversial. Templates aren't badges of shame, so this template should be removed until something specific can be agreed upon. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Actionable changes have been proposed. They just weren't proposed as part of the RfC, unfortunately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. It.... is four paragraphs? And the first two are very short ones, even. The lead seems about right to me. If you want to trim something, be specific about what you want to remove; but I don't feel it's anywhere remotely close to the length where we could justify removing stuff simply due to length constraints. The lead-too-long template should, obviously, be removed. I also think you're seriously underselling Spencer's notability (the heavy, high-profile mainstream sourcing for each aspect of the lead shows that he has attracted a lot of coverage - and the fact that I was able to find significant acacdemic coverage above speaks for itself.) The fact that much of this coverage is comparatively recent isn't a valid argument, especially when "recent" in this case covers over a year (it seems like he catapulted to fame in early 2017 after the one-two punch of the Nazi-rhetoric rally combined with, well, literally being punched and the ensuing debate.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Per MOSLEAD: "a concise overview". Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Definition of concise: marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". The lead is anything but that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOSLEAD also (as you know, because you cited it verbatim above) gives a specific guideline for how we should interpret the 'concise' requirement in this case, which is "no more than four paragraphs." Bluntly, it's obvious some people have objections to the specific content of the lead, which is fine (and should be raised in their own sections), but the suggestion that this lead is too long strikes me as baseless. This is an appropriately-sized lead for a topic of this prominence, with this degree of broad coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - There is some detail that could be trimmed out, but it's not trivial detail. I agree with others that an RfC is not the best way forward.- MrX 🖋 13:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha, that reads like a yes to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the detail improve or hinder readers' understanding of the subject? In my view, it improves it and any edits I would make would be for style, clarity, and concision.- MrX 🖋 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do the names of the plaintiffs' lawyers improve readers' understanding of Richard Spencer? Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - Procedural, since no options but Yes or No are given, with no proposal on what to change, remove or replace. Dave Dial (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Dave Dial, proposals were made in the "Neo-Nazi" and "Charlottesville" sections above and included in my !vote. Unfortunately these proposals didn't make it into the RfC itself. You're invited to weigh in on them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Try fixing my proposal below. Some things can be removed or reworded, some should be moved into other sections. I don't have the experience in how to go about it, but will try to keep on an eye on the progress. I will be gone soon for some hours. Grandkids and such. Dave Dial (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No. Lead length isn't a problem here; it's well within the boundaries set by MOS:LEAD. The language could use improvement; it harps on certain details quite unnecessarily. Vanamonde (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• No - Length isn't the problem. Some of the language could be improved however, as other users indicate. Steeletrap (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• No - as above - no problem with the length, but it needs trimming. For example, as a summary it is enough to say he was banned from entering some EU countries for his racist views. Which countries and why specifically is an article body discussion. I don't think the results of the overarching question posed by this RfC should prevent editors from boldly altering the article lede if they think there's a problem with it. Edaham (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• No / malformed RfC: the question is too vague. The lead could be tightened but it's not "too long" for the size of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think this is going to help. This is a very simple question which doesn't provide room for meaty discussion, and without discussion, it's just voting. Could the lede stand to be trimmed? Maybe? Without explaining what, exactly, would be removed, there's nothing to work with. There is no good answer to a question this simplistic, and trying to shunt editors into yes/no columns is inappropriate and unworkable. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to make the question as neutral as possible because of the tension in the discussion(s) above the RfC on this very subject. Do you have a suggestion how it could be better worded before anyone else ends up here and !votes? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that a specific RFC on "should we take this part out?" or "do we devote too much text to this aspect?" would be more productive. If you can't identify any one specific part you feel you could successfully argue for trimming, then the lead is obviously not too long; conversely, if it's too long, you should be easily able to find either a specific thing you want to trim ("remove this text" or "reword this part to be less verbose") or a specific aspect that doesn't belong in the lead ("should we talk less about [part]"). Trying to make an RFC neutrally-worded is good, but trying to make it entirely uncontroversial like this is bad, since the whole point is to resolve a controversy over article content that we've failed to resolve through discussion ourselves. You've neutralized it to the point where it barely proposes anything actionable. It's fine to be more specific in terms of "I propose making this change to the article" as long as you word it neutrally (I usually put my arguments for why I want to make the change in my !vote, to be safe.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for explaining that better than I did. While I think this RFC is rocky at best, I also agree this could benefit from a broader discussion, so in the spirit of collaboration...

The lede should summarize the body of the article, but right now it contains a lot of information which isn't in the body. The information about the countries he's banned from jumps out at me in this regard. This should be detailed in the body, and only summarized in the lede afterwards. This is standard practice, and helps with readability.

As I've said before, I think a majority of sources published after the Unite the Right rally which discuss Spencer also mention Unite the Right, and most of those also mention Heather Heyer's death (often indirectly, such as calling it "deadly"). This, to me suggests that it has become a defining association, and the lawsuit also supports this. Even if this weren't the case, mentioning why the rally is significant just seems like good explanatory writing. We may know all about it, but a few extra words for those who don't know or don't fully remember really helps the article make sense.

This is part of the problem. Each of these four paragraphs is there for a good reason, even if it's not obvious, and even if I agree with trimming some of them heavily, we need to go through this more comprehensively to avoid being dogmatic about lede length. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it could be trimmed. People are supposed to read the article to get specific details, and the lead is supposed to be an overview. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph, which says he has been called a Neo-Nazi and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric is probably good enough. At that point, you've summarized the Nazi-related aspects of the article, and you don't have to give specific details about when and where he gave Nazi salutes. I'd focus on that level of detail and leave specifics to the body. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The 'European countries' seems over detailed - and at times trying to infer things which it cannot back-up (eg characterising Polish Govt - to infer that he's too far-right even for them? Or what?). If the Polish ban is deemed lead-worthy, it should simply give govt reason - or RS analysis, but not inference. It probably isn't lead worthy and the bans could be summarised to a sentence or two. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note. This RfC is obsolete as I have significantly cut down the lede already in a hope to reach a consensus. Steeletrap (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP policy violation in opening paragraph

If he explicitly rejects the label white supremacist in favor of white nationalist, it doesn't matter if you put a reference or not, the BLP policy suggests its not a question of defamation, its a question of living people deciding not to have it say something.

I'm not disputing any of the statements. I'm just saying having those two back to back like that makes it really obvious the Biography of Living People policy isn't being followed.

Why not indicate that he is considered to be a white supremacist, rather than stately directly that he is one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.172.194 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The BLP policy requires that we write about living people only in ways which are clearly and strictly supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Spencer as a white supremacist. Therefore, whether or not he prefers that terminology, we will use it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How many of these "reliable sources" understand the different nuances between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist"? I'd bet that most of them consider these to be synonyms, but to be more intellectually rigorous, a white nationalist would say merely that the other "races" should be kept out of his nation, with the white supremacist going further in saying that the white race is superior and/or ought to rule over the other races. I strongly oppose both of these positions and personally suspect that Spencer is probably actually the latter, but IMO Wikipedia ought to follow Unsigned's suggestion of saying "he is considered to be a white supremacist" if it wants to appear credible. DanSSwing (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How many of these "reliable sources" understand the different nuances between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist"? Most, if not all of them. Note that the former are frequently considered by expert analysts to be a subset of the latter [1] [2]. Others never make the connection explicit, but nonetheless accuse white nationalists of the same behaviors as white supremacists [3] [4].

but to be more intellectually rigorous White supremacists/nationalists of all sort are anything but "intellectually rigorous" else they wouldn't be white supremacists.

with the white supremacist going further in saying that the white race is superior and/or ought to rule over the other races. Richard Spencer has repeatedly and explicitly argued that the "white race" (remember if you want to be a Wikipedian that there is no such thing as a "white race") is superior.

IMO Wikipedia ought to follow Unsigned's suggestion of saying "he is considered to be a white supremacist" if it wants to appear credible. Our policy is not to state facts as opinions, no matter how butthurt nazis get over it. I may be paraphrasing a bit, there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If he has argued explicitly that the white race is superior after having previously denied being a white supremacist, then I think we should quote him to that effect in this article as evidence that he actually is a white supremacist, and I would then agree with keeping the introduction as currently written. DanSSwing (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah, he's been given enough air-time, and to avoid WP:OR we leave the interpreting to reliable sources. Lately it seems like those sources are as sick of his evasive waffle as everybody else is. Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping white supremacists manage their public relations. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line: I visited this page after reading a Facebook post that mentioned him because I wanted to see if he really IS a white supremacist. In today's world, many people consider anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton to be a white supremacist. If someone can actually provide a quote from him showing that he believes the white "race" to be superior, I can't imagine why you wouldn't add it to this page as evidence in support of the lead sentence. If he is a white supremacist, then why not expose him using evidence and not just name-calling? Unfortunately, opening with the claim that he is a white supremacist but then failing to support it in the rest of the article--in fact, the article is full of his claims that he is NOT a white supremacist--damages Wikipedia's credibility. DanSSwing (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If someone can actually provide a quote from him showing that he believes the white "race" to be superior "Africans have benefitted from their experience with white supremacy. They (African slaves) benefited from being in a nation other than their own."

failing to support it in the rest of the article--in fact, the article is full of his claims that he is NOT a white supremacist--damages Wikipedia's credibility. Spencer's own claims about his views are so obviously false and self-serving that his RationalWiki article is sarcastically written from that exact POV.

Ok, I'm gonna tell you something important, so please read this carefully: If you think Richard Spencer is a trustworthy source for claims of fact, even if those claims of fact are in reference to his own beliefs, then you are incompetent to edit this project, because you lack the basic critical thinking skills necessary to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources. I mean, seriously. You think Wikipedia is lying and Spencer is not? That's just so incredibly stupid that it barely merits this response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"You think Wikipedia is lying and Spencer is not?" Yes. People who edit Wikipedia often lie. I see no reason why Spencer would lie about the content of his already quite unpopular beliefs or why he warrants the label "white supremacist" simply because he has been labeled as such by journalists. Public figures are, as a rule, reliable sources about the content and nature their public beliefs. Spencer's self-description as "white nationalist" should be preferred to the journalist-alleged "white supremacist". Eharding (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

People who edit Wikipedia often lie

Utterly irrelevant, since it's reliable sources being used in Wikipedia we're talking about here. No reframing the question, please.

I see no reason why Spencer would lie about the content of his already quite unpopular beliefs

Strangely enough, Wikipedia doesn't go by your personal argument from incredulity in assessing what goes in and what stays. Not mention that Spencer has an obvious reason to spin his beliefs -- whether you can imagine it or not -- namely a way of making his beliefs more acceptable for mass consumption. --Calton | Talk 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that's why my proposal to add "60 times the pope" Charles Manson's infobox hasn't gained any traction. Nblund ^talk 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion in Public Speaking section

Can this event be included in the Public Speaking section? It was covered by several major news outlets. See links here: CNN,Washington Post, NPR, al.com

Davidmith (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The nature of the alleged abuse by Spencer against Kouprianova

In the 'Personal Life' section I tried to expand the reference to Kouprianova's allegations of Spencer's "abusive" behaviour towards her by including a quote from her divorce filings included in the Buzzfeed story included in the cited BBC article which refers to “physically, emotionally, verbally and financially abusive” actions. This inclusion of mine was deleted and the user whom redacted it claimed that the "quote [doesn't improve] anything, as it's basically saying he was abusive in general, which is what was said before". I don't see how this is the case seeing as a broad reference to Spencer being 'abusive' carries far different weight than a quote which details not just physical abuse, which is obviously far more severe, but a whole range of other significant forms of abuse. The term 'abusive' doesn't seem encompassing enough for the sheer level of abuse Kouprianova has accused Spencer of, certainly not physical abuse. I adamantly think my edit should be reinstated.

BenjiThurston (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (AET)

I'm on the fence, but I support User:MjolnirPants's revert because caution is very good here, and it's better to discuss this kind of thing first. Part of the problem is that both parties wished for these records to remain sealed, which does matter, per WP:BLP. Even if our only goal was to support the victims of abuse, that wouldn't mean violating their privacy to prove a point. Diving into the details of the allegations made by a WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE against her express wishes is invasive. It's also gossipy, which is a lesser problem, but still a problem.

However, the way Wikipedia deals with this is by evaluating reliable sources. It really does seem like this specific quote has been emphasized by multiple reliable sources. BBC quotes it, AP doesn't even use quotes, ditto Washington Post, NY Daily puts it in the headline, but not the article itself... I dunno. It's hard to argue that it's not important to the incident, but we're WP:NOTNEWS and not a gossip column, either, so I would like to see what others think. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that it's quite important to the issue. If we were writing a news piece, I would absolutely include it. But the thing is, my rule of thumb for judging the due weight of a well-sourced claim is this: does it impact the narrative?

Now, the current narrative (before this edit) is that Kouprianova filed for divorce and accused Spencer of being "abusive". Now, if we change this to say that she filed for divorce and accused him of being physically, emotionally, verbally and financially abusive", how does that impact the narrative?

I'm just not seeing any fundamental difference. Hell, I'm barely seeing any difference in the details. Generally speaking, physical abuse is what people mean when they say "abuse" in that context, and physical abuse is almost always accompanied by emotional, verbal, and financial abuse. Seriously, try to find a single case where someone was physically abusing their spouse, but remained emotionally, verbally and financially supportive. Well, you might find a few rich guys who used lavish spending to "make up" for their abuse, but certainly no-one's ever pushed their spouse down a stairwell while shouting "I'm proud of you and I don't blame you for things outside of your control!" The thought is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

So yeah, I'm not convinced by the argument above, or even by the argument that it's well-covered. Of course it's well covered; every source reporting on the divorce is going to report on that. Duh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think 'abusive' could easily be interpreted as just verbal, emotional or other kinds of psychological abuse. The greater severity of physical abuse justifies it being specified rather than being categorised equally with other forms of abuse that, while clearly still potentially very damaging to the victim, cause nowhere near the same immediate harm as physical abuse. BenjiThurston (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (AET)

Addition about Auburn University speaking engagement

Can we reach a consensus on inclusion of this event? It is historically significant was covered by major news outlets at the time:

In April 2018, Spencer spoke at Auburn University. The college canceled his speaking engagement prior to the appearance, but Spencer sued the college and a federal judge issued an injunction against the university to allow him to speak.

Also, I already began a discussion in the "Inclusion in Public Speaking Section" section of this talk page, but it has been summarily ignored and I have been told "take it to the talk page."

Davidmith (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going with "exclude", based on the fact that it's just another in a long string of legal fisticuffs he's engaged with various speaking venues in. It also doesn't help that you threw a little bitch fit at WP:RFPP after getting reverted once and then decided to edit war rather than taking the admin's advice, so let's see what other editors have to say, as I'm now far more inclined to oppose it than I would have been had you just posted here instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you decided to go spam my talk page with your immaturity, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

---

References

BLP violation to call him white supremacist without qualification?

Discussed ad nauseam, see talk page archives for clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He has specifically said he rejects the label of white supremacy, and identifies instead as white nationalist, among other terms. There is a difference between supremacy and nationalist, as Wikipedia's separate articles for each topic delineate. Why is this article identifying him as white supremacist, without qualification (i.e. "he is described as white supremacist") when he specifically said he isn't? Do we do that for any other cases? Heck, we refer to people with certain pronouns based solely on how they choose to identify, isn't that completely at odds with what is going on here? Obviously there are biases at play here, but shouldn't they be set aside? I don't understand why this is accepted.24.222.180.42 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"White Zionist"

Regarding this edit: I agree that this is well-sourced and potentially useful to mention in the article body, but probably not in the lead. Stripped of context, "white Zionist" sounds like some kind of confused statement of support for Israel, but it's really more of an anti-Semitic troll. White supremacists like Spencer produce a lot of word-salad self-descriptions like this to obscure their views, in general, I think we should handle these carefully and avoid adding them to the lead without some context to explain them. Nblund ^talk 01:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

this has been done. His self description is sourced, due, and has been differentiated from Zionism by way of a short explanation. Please check the new text. I think it is ok. Edaham (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

MLK day?

Should this deletion be supported?

If a white supremacist makes some public action on a notable public holiday, such as Martin Luther King Day, then that's significant and should be recorded here.

We shouldn't assume their motivation unless supported by WP:RS, but the simple fact of the date - that's justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly, Wikipedia's original research policy makes "because I said so" a non-starter for sourcing claims. --Calton | Talk 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is the OR? The date is sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This can be sourced through [5] Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, great. Now his defenders can re-run that "SPLC is just non-RS Libtards" thread again. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I originally rejected this deletion from an IP editor (through the Review Changes process), but Calton reverted my rejection and then I suffered his typically sarcastic and somewhat abusive messages to me, even when I tried to explain my rationale for rejecting the deletion. I believe the deletion should not stand, but do not need to re-read Calton's arguments, as I well understand his position because he provided four OP-ED articles about John Birch Society all based on the same WaPo writer that had nothing to do with Spencer. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• It does appear that there are a couple other sources that mention the date coincided with MLK day, but I don't really see the point in mentioning Spencer's trollish timing. It's not like we need additional evidence that he is a racist. Nblund ^talk 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think we do Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Spencer is quoted as calling King a "fraud and a degenerate", so I'm really not sure anyone who isn't already persuaded by that point is going to be persuaded by this implicit dig at his legacy. Some outlets who covered the launch briefly mentioned that it coincided with MLK day, but others didn't. So it doesn't seem essential. If our goal is to inform people that Spencer is hostile toward King or civil rights in general, why not just point to his explicit statements? Nblund ^talk 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The date being MLK Day appears to be trivia and does not need to be mentioned. It's not like anybody is confused about Spencer's ideology. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Facts do need to be mentioned whether someone already knows them or not. I'd suggest that what some consider trivial, others consider meaningful, especially when they further inform a reader as to just how someone is communicating their ideaology. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Caption..

Beyond My Ken I am perfectly aware the MOS isn't mandatory. That doesn't give you license to impose your preferences over (so far) the objections of 3 users and common practice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

IAR gives me that precisely that license. Redundant information is redundant. The article titlte is "Richard B. Spencer", the infobox title is "Richard B. Spencer", what purpose, exactly does identifying the image as Spencer have? None, none at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not lean on IAR much when it comes to edit warring against three other editors and status quo. I would agree that, if that caption were simply his full name, it would be redundant (although I have seen similar in other articles). However, just the year, and especially in parentheses, is very odd to my eyes. I think the current version represents best practice across Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could use a more descriptive caption like "Spencer speaking at the 2016 National Policy Institute conference in Washington, D.C." - MrX 🖋 13:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a note here indicating my support for changing this infobox caption and all infobox captions to "(Date)" and not "(Name) in (date)" for the reasons stated in WP:YOUDONTSAY (and stated again by BMK above). Leviv ich 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "At the Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, D.C., on November 19, 2016". Leviv ich 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Captions should be brief but descriptive, and not in parentheses for crying out loud. As I suggested above, including the subject's full name or last name is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 12:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

MrX, bad writing is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. Leviv ich 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Putting only the year in a caption is bad writing. Including the name of the subject is not. - MrX 🖋 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning entry to Poland

An editor is persistently removing information related to this diff. I’ve had a look at the source and it probably could do with better wording, but I doubt that wholesale removal of the source and its related text is due. Can someone please look at the edit, as I am at 1r today and there are DS on this page? (something which has been made clear to the reverting editor who has now exceeded this limit) Edaham (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I just removed one sentence and the source accompanying it now because I can't see any reference to what it says within the source. [User:Blight55|Blight55]] 13:22 04/03/2019 (UTC).

the sentence was in a paragraph about him being refused entry to Poland and the source was about that too. Clearly our understanding of this is at odds, but someone else will take a look, so no big deal I guess. Edaham (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative Right listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative Right. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC closure

That RFC closure flatly does not come anywhere close to reflecting the consensus on the page. I've asked @Tvx1: to self-revert and allow for an admin closure, but either way this edit is not in any way a defensible implementation of the consensus above and does not reflect the consensus reached in the WP:RFC. RFCs are not a vote, of course, but a quick nose-count shows roughly 17 people for inclusion, 3 uncertain, and 9 opposing (with many of the oppose arguments clearly being weak or ungrounded in policy); interpreting that as "do not include" would require extremely strong arguments by people opposing inclusion, which are not at all present. Additionally, the question that the RFC closer made key to their opinion ("should we say he's a neo-nazi in Wikipedia's voice, or say something like embracing neo-nazism or having ties to neo-nazism) isn't part of the RFC itself and is something the vast majority of opinions didn't touch on - it's a pure WP:SUPERVOTE that avoids summarizing the WP:RFC accurately by replacing its conclusion with a "compromise" they invented themselves. Now that we have an RFC clearly stating that we should refer to him as a neo-Nazi in the lead, yes, we can debate exactly how to term it; but just supervoting an undiscussed resolution into an RFC and claiming consensus for it when it got little support or discussion in the RFC itself isn't the way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Since User:Tvx1 indicated on their talk that they actually thought there was no consensus (which does not match their closure, since they ended it with a consensus for a specific version that appears to merely represent their personal opinion), I've reverted it as improper and restored the article to the last stable version. --Aquillion (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the close was lacking there, and the stable version should stay until we get some resolution. To clarify: are you relisting the discussion or requesting a new admin close? Nblund ^talk 15:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to wait a bit to see what other people thought (undoing it myself was obviously a bit WP:BOLD, haha, so I realized belatedly I should give other people a change to weigh in to see if we have to go to WP:ANI or something.) Probably we should request an admin close if nobody objects terribly; if someone does object terribly, then I think we have to go to WP:ANI first, but I thought the problem was clear enough here that we could avoid that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And to WP:AN we go, I guess. Here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• As a reminder, a no-consensus close defaults to the status quo outside of WP:BLP concerns (which were not raised in any significant way during the RFC and not mentioned in the close and, therefore, do not apply here.) This edit is improper and goes against the no-consensus outcome above. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Neo-Nazi label

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.

---

relisting for more discussion Nblund ^talk 17:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the article also describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi? THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 15:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - As per sources like this one. Spencer rose to fame for being a clean-cut, palatable spokesman for neo-Nazism and white nationalism. Also this one. Spencer became infamous last November, after a video showed him shouting “Heil Trump” and quoting Nazi propaganda in German during an anti-Semitic speech at a white nationalist conference in Washington D.C., held to celebrate Donald Trump’s electoral victory. People who aren't neo-Nazis don't approvingly quote Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Your second source does not explicitly describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi, and only says that someone asked if he is a neo-Nazi. Hickland (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Include, per sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) only if explicitly stated in the sources, for otherwise its synthesis. Coretheapple (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Probably include. Most sources (per my BEFORE) seem to be rolling with "white supremacist"/"white nationalist" as a primary label, while mentioning Nazi ties not as a primary adjective. Some sources do use it as a primary adjective. Those that don't, do cover various Nazi/neo-Nazi rhetoric. I'm not sure I like "is an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist" phrasing as "neo-Nazi" sits in my mind as an adjective and not a noun (though I see Webster supports noun use as well) - I do think this could be phrased differently, but however it is phrased it seems to belong in the beginning of the lede (prior to Spencer's denial). Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Mixed - Personally, I believe he is a neo-Nazi. However, I'm not seeing any reliable sources that directly describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi in their own voice, nor can we use Wikipedia's voice to do so, per WP:WIKIVOICE. We also can't use WP:OR to get there. However, we can say that he embraces neo-Nazi ideology and symbols, is fetishized by neo-Nazis, organizes neo-Nazi events, and has been described by many as a neo-Nazi.- MrX 🖋 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with MrX. It strongly depends on whether there's a reliable source that specifically calls him one; I haven't looked into the article, but the sources presented in this RfC do not. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:51, 02 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, the sources are relevant and credible, should remain PreacherBob55 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Remove, as I can find overwhelming examples of sources calling Spencer an alt-right and being supported by neo-Nazi groups, but none that say specifically that he is a neo-Nazi. None of the sources listed in the article for the sentence (at least, the ones that I can click and see) explicitly call him a neo-Nazi. Calling him a neo-Nazi would be a result of our own research. I agree with MrX above, though, in that the article can state that neo-Nazis have expressed support for him. Hickland (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove from lead. The Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism and the ADL describe him as a white supremacist who frequently traffics in Neo-Nazi rhetoric. These sources don't have any qualms about identifying neo-Nazis, they just don't see him as primarily a member of that movement. We should probably defer to those sources. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The main rationale for removing is that sources don't call him a Nazi, but in fact numerous reliable sources do describe him as Neo-Nazi, which I detail in the discussion below. That he is a neo-Nazi (or at least is widely considered to be is relevant to the lede because his publicly displays of Nazi rhetoric (Hail Trump, etc) is one of the things he's most noted for. In the discussion below I list those sources. 188.247.73.208 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, not in Wikipedia's voice. It's possible to find use of the "neo-Nazi" label in RS (ip user 188.247.73.208 has collected some examples below), but it's used much less frequently than white supremacist/white nationalist, and mostly appears in opinion pieces. That he is a neo-Nazi seems closer to an opinion than a fact, so per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should report the fact that the label has been applied to him by some (and any other relevant, verifiable info about how he's been embraced by unambiguous neo-Nazis, or used neo-Nazi imagery), but not apply the label in Wikipedia's voice. Colin M (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• No - The thing is, nowhere in the body of the article is the case for this clearly made, so we shouldn't be making such a claim in the lead. Every instance of "Nazi" in the article looks to be about connections to e.g. the Nazi salute or a Nazi movie, etc. but doesn't seem to characterize him as a Nazi. There are undoubtedly sources which make the claim, but it seems to me more work would need to be done to make that claim and back it up in the article before we include it in the lead. ...Not the way I would've thought I'd go on this question, but the lead is based on the most important things that are already in the article... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove It's ridiculous to treat a label as fact when the person in question themselves reject the label. You can say alleged all you want, but you can't say it's fact just because someone else called him a nazi. 24.35.169.189 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC) — 24.35.169.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Sources call him a neo-Nazi and he used Nazi rhetoric. We go off of RS on Wikipedia. Does any RS say he isn't a Nazi or an anti-Semite? If so we could present both sides of the issue while noting his self-identification. Otherwise it's editorializing/contrary to policy to say (contrary to all RS) Spencer isn't a Neo-Nazi. GergisBaki (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove This label is being tossed around a lot in the media nowadays, at times being used to discredit or dismiss opposing ideologies. We should not play into that, specially if the person themselves reject the label. Barca (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The Vanity Fair and Newsweek sources listed below, along with the SF Gate, are sufficient. Some comments here state incorrectly that there are no reliable sources that say Spencer is a neo-Nazi, and others are inconsistent with WP:V. R2 (bleep) 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Mixed (lean keep) I think it's fine to refer to him as a neo-Nazi in the article based on RS coverage, but I also find Nblund's rationale persuasive, and given the degree of overlap between "neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist/white nationalist" I'm not sure it's necessary to label him as both in the lead and/or infobox. That having been said, arguments to the effect that he shouldn't be labeled as such because he personally rejects the label are extremely weak, Spencer is not an independent source on himself and his views should not take precedence over RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that a neo-nazi knows people don't like neo-nazis and doesn't describe himself as such doesn't make him not a neo-nazi. There are plenty of reliable sources describing him using this very term. According to The Guardian "He became internationally famous after shouting “Hail Trump! Hail our people!” and being greeted with Nazi salutes at a white nationalist event in November 2016".. He knows exactly what he's doing. And he is avoiding the term neo-nazi to make himself more presentable. But when you shout "hail out people" in front of a group that welcomes you with Nazi salutes, I think you should lose the privilege of self-representation. Rapists rarely describe themselves as rapists and thieves rarely describes themselves as thieves. That doesn't mean the label shouldn't apply to them because they reject it. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn't just reject the label because he doesn't self apply it, but other sources like the ADL and SPLC also don't label him that way. The effort to "look presentable" is a meaningful dividing line among the factions of white supremacist movements. Spencer is not explicitly anti-Semitic, and he doesn't cover himself in Swastikas or revere Hitler - which are really the defining features of neo-Nazism. Spencer's "hail-Hitlering" was a big deal, in part, because his "wing" of the movement tries to avoid those displays. Nblund ^talk 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - A lot of sources discuss the subject's white supremacy etc. Some more specifically discuss his being a neo-nazi. We should use the more specific meaning - being a white supremacist does not mean he is not a neo-nazi. We could of course say 'white supremacist neo-nazi' if we want to be crystal clear (which appears to be close to what we're already doing). PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes but I could live with Nblund's suggestion of a white supremacist with close ties to the Neo-Nazi and white nationalist movements. I don'think the difference is so important that it's worth too much editor time being spent on the distinction, but I think the points made by (for example) PraiseVivec explain well why the label is appropriate. Given how much discussion there is here, though I'd suggest Nblund's suggested wording is the most appropriate. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC) (summoned by robot)
• Yes per sources and per WP:ITSFREAKINGOBVIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• No not as suggested, but I could endorse Nblund's a white supremacist with close ties to the Neo-Nazi and white nationalist movements or some of MrX's suggestions. Not only is this more in line with sources, it's also more informative about the man, who sometimes quacks like a duck, is much loved in the pond, but is either subtly different from or sufficiently astute to manage to stay a feather's breadth away from being duck-meat. Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include: if the sources say it, the article does, too. It might help to clarify the author of the designation, though, when citing it. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 05:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Remove He identifies as a white nationalist/supremacist and most sources seem to identify him as this as well. Descriptions of him as a neo-Nazi appear to be secondary to this, less explicitly defined, and appear in fewer sources. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include due to the preponderance of sources calling this neo-nazi a neo-nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be in the first sentence of the lead. It's well-cited and is absolutely central to his notability. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• No. Sure, there are some sources describing him as neo-Nazi, but unlike the "white supremacist" label it's not what he's primarily known for, and the body of evidence is not sufficient to declare it without qualification, in Wikipedia's voice. Given the perjorative nature of the term, and the lack of MOS:IDENTITY reasons, we have to err on the side of caution for a BLP, even if many of us don't actually approve of the subject's views.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/Keep in the lead. It is verifiable information (e.g. some of those linked below, [6][7][8]). I understand that he is more widely described as a white supremacist than a neo-Nazi, to which I propose that we simply swap "American neo-Nazi and white supremacist" to "American white supremacist and neo-Nazi". If "neo-Nazi" is removed as a description then we should also remove it from the third sentence ("Spencer rejects the labels white supremacist and neo-Nazi, considers himself a ...") as it is much more significant (according to reliable sources) that he is a neo-Nazi than that he denies being a neo-Nazi. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 12:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include. I agree with the above comment that white supremacist is used more frequently, so should probably appear first. But he is routinely described as a neo-Nazi. Others have provided more than adequate reliable source coverage, but I'll also note that [9], which was mentioned above, also describes Heimbach as "another prominent young neo-Nazi" at the end of an article about Spencer. It's indirect, but it's very clear. Ralbegen (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include, as pile-on. Reliaby sourced and consistent with the observed facts. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/Keep. Though not a self-description, and not used in all sources, it seems to me to pass muster in the sources as a whole. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/Keep per the sources already in the article, and the sources listed below. If reliable sources say it, then we report it. Whther Spencer rejects the label is irrelevant: people who hold controversial views often attempt to control how those views are described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Although as a compromise, I wouldn't object ot Nblund's "white nationalist and white supremacist who is closely linked to the Neo-Nazi movement." Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes keep I went to Google and YouTube and saw enough evidences that this person is a neo-Nazi. For example here in this video on YouTube people who were with him were doing the Nazi salute. In this video on YouTube he admits he has said "You will not replace us". Even Fox news has called him a white supremacist and said that he has called for the removal of African Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the US in this video on YouTube. Also he denies being a Nazi or a Neo-Nazi. He calls himself alt-right that might be worth mentioning but reliable sources are clear, he is a Neo-Nazi and a white supremacist. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes/Keep. Absolutely, Wikipedia is meant to convey the consensus view of respectable sources, irregardless of an individual's personal feelings about that being included in their biography or descriptions of their person. Spencer is a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist, so he should be described as such.
• No, not so simply. Per policy, WP:WIKIVOICE, avoid stating opinions as facts. State, with 3 selected sources, that many have described Spencer as a neo-Nazi. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• No per NBlund's comments below. He's a despicable human being, IMHO, but this is a matter of what WP:RS call him and this doesn't fit the description just because some opinion editors label him as such. He himself rejects the label. So...no. Buffs (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, Buffs, what? If he doesn't want to be called something, even though he is something, we can't call him that? I'm not arguing that we should, but if you think that something like "neo-Nazi" is a matter of self-identification, then identity politics has indeed gone berserk. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems premature, given the lack of apparent talk page discussion. There are accusations of Neo-Nazi rhetoric, but he's more closely linked to the suit-and-tie branch of the white power movement that is less focused on anti-Semitism and that avoids public displays of Swastikas and whatnot. I don't think there's a good reason for removing all mention of accusations of Nazism, but I also wouldn't say that's his primary affiliation. Nblund ^talk 15:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Setting aside the BLP-crying and edit warring that often goes on at this page, I do think it's worth clarifying Spencer's role. The ADL describes Spencer as straddling a line between the more "respectable" elements on the far right and the more overtly radical ones (like Neo-Nazis)

On one side are the American Nationalists who believe white supremacists should appeal to whites by using innocuous symbols like the American flag, and avoid openly white supremacist symbols like swastikas. On the other side are the National Socialists and other hard-right groups whose members display white supremacist symbols at rallies and don’t care about “optics” or appealing to the white middle class. Spencer walks the line between the two groups. Although he does not wear or publicly promote any white supremacist symbols, he did align himself with the Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP), a neo-Nazi group.

A lot of this comes down to more superficial distinctions in tactics and aesthetics rather than a real difference in ideology. Spencer has close ties to Neo-Nazis and has no real problem with Nazism as an ideology, but I do think that plainly calling him a Neo-Nazi in the lead is kind of oversimplifying his role in the far right. He is most closely associated with the less antiSemitic Jared Taylor wing, but he's been engaged in "an attempt to unify American and European ethno-nationalists under one roof" I think we could describe that in a little more detail, and - in the lead - describe him as "a white supremacist with close ties to the Neo-Nazi and white nationalist movements" or something along those lines. Nblund ^talk 16:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources calling Spencer neo-Nazi

• The Independent, Nov 8, 2017 (1).
• Haaretz, September 25, 2017. (2)
• The Daily Beast, (date unknown), (3)
• Vanity Fair, September 12, 2017 (4)
• The Daily Mail, May 22, 2017. (5)
• Tablet Magazine, March 21, 2017 (6)
• Newsweek, November 16, 2017 (7)
• The New York Observer, May 14, 2017 (8)

188.247.73.208 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@IPUser, I think some of this is helpful, but: sources #1, #3 only use the term Neo-Nazi in the headline. Sources #2, #6, and #8 appear to be opinion pieces. Number #5 is a Daily Mail story, which is deprecated. I think the Newsweek (#7) and Vanity Fair (#4) articles are the only sources here that approach a reliable source for claims of fact, although they are also arguably opinion pieces. In my view, these don't outweigh the perspective of expert organizations like the SPLC, and the ADL, which classify Spencer as a white nationalist/white supremacist who is closely linked to the Neo-Nazi movement. Nblund ^talk 16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• A reference: Meyer, Robinson (20 March 2018). "YouTube Removes The Atlantic's 'Hail, Trump' Video From Search". The Atlantic.

References

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

Please revert back to version without neo-nazi. 108.238.40.10 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources cited for the description; no valid reason cited for removing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also see the RfC above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Now below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is full of controversies with a lot of details, that shouldn't be there. Only summaries of notable controversies should be in the lead. It's already 5 paragraphs which is a lot. I suggest removing some controversies and summarising the notable ones. Like the controversy about his wife, that should definitely be deleted.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Four paragraphs is what is recommended in WP:LEAD, so five paragraphs is not "a lot". The lede should summarize the article, and if there are a lot of controversies in the article, there are going to be a lot of mentions in the lede, unless you're suggesting that saying something like "There are a lot of controversies about Spencer" is sufficient -- which it isn't. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Beyond My Ken see the paragraph about his wife. Do need that in the lead? It doesn't seem to be notable for a long period of time. See the section Personal life the controversy is more summarised there than the lead. There are more details about the controversy of his wife in the lead than in the body which is odd. The same goes with the other paragraphs but I don't know much about this person and his controversies so I can't think of a better way to summarize that. I fear I might make a mistake while doing that.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently more about his ex-wife in the lead than there is in the body. One of these two things needs to be fixed. GMG^talk 20:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think the solution is that there should be more in the body. — Bilorv (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Five paragraphs absolutely is a lot; a high quality article almost never exceeds the four paragraph hard limit (World War II is the only one that springs to mind and that's level 3 vital, not level 5). So I've merged the second and fourth paragraphs and cut down on the length of the third. The wife paragraph is relevant (encyclopedic significance of an event is ongoing and we should avoid recentism) but there was a fair bit of stuff in the lead that could be easily trimmed. No doubt a lot more work can be put into making it flow better but hopefully it's an improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The lead is entirely composed of "controversy" and doesn't read like a biography at all. It is supposed to be a summary of the article body, which could stand alone.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Your edit summary reads: Lead is shorter now, but still does not summarise the aetife. "early life" and "personal life" sections are entirely missing. You seem to have overlooked that the entire third paragraph stems from the Personal life section. Additionally, the Early life section would be undue weight to focus on in the lead, at least for more than a sentence. I've removed the tag for now, though if you want to add a single sentence on Early life then that might be appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Early life is self evidently a part of a biography, and the only thing that has undue weight right now is the controversies. Of course, he's a controversial figure, and it's right to discuss those, but right now the lead is just a checklist of negative things about Spencer, it's not a summary of his life and work.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  What exactly about "his life and work" is uncontroversial? His calling for a white ethnostate? His promotion of the Fourteen Words? His professional participation in Unite the Right? The lead absolutely does summarise his life and work, sometimes uncritically e.g. it talks about his respect for the American Nazi Party founder (something he's open about) but nowhere does it condemn him for it or even imply that such a thing is controversial. You said "please do not remove tag when issues are unresolved" but you've not actually pointed to any specific issues, other than that a five-line paragraph is not summarised in the lead—a problem solved by adding the text that you think is appropriate to the lead rather than a vague "not good enough for unspecified reasons" tag. — Bilorv (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• These are the things about him that have attracted coverage and made him notable - he's a controversial figure (to put it mildly), that's what he's famous for. Asking that the lead not reflect that in its balance is requesting WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk)

RFC 2: The Sequel

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.

---

From my reading above there is strong support for some reference to neo-Nazism, some (much less) rejection, and at least one interesting proposal that was not addressed by the RfC directly.

Should the lede say Richard Spencer is:

1. a neo-Nazi and white supremacist (status quo)
2. a white supremacist with close ties to the Neo-Nazi and white nationalist movements
   1. a white supremacist and white nationalist with close ties to the Neo-Nazi movement
3. a white supremacist
4. broadly described as a neo-Nazi and white supremacist ^{[3 quality example sources]}

Guy (Help!) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

item 2.1 added per Ivanvector 20:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Opinions

• As proposer, happy with #1 but I think #2 may be better. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Switching to 2.1 per Ivanvector. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can't argue with 1, 2, or 3 (all on differing rationales, mind); but would prefer #2, given that it is far more verifiable. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• prefer 2 prefer 2.1 I can live with option 1, but Neo-Nazis (like Andrew Anglin) are a faction within white supremacy. Spencer "straddles the line" between the Neo-Nazi and "respectable" white nationalist factions, and he attempted to unite them under the alt-right umbrella. That's a big part of why he became such a central figure for the far right. Nblund ^talk 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Eh? The RfC above has been reopened. Is this one not redundant to that one? Additionally, I don't see any rationale for presenting these three options as our only choice when there are many more possibilities. — Bilorv (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Improper WP:RFC closure on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Another discussion which hasn't been closed. I'm still confused. — Bilorv (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It was closed. The result was no consensus, so this is a follow up.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

... and then the close was reverted. Why are we trying to relitigate something rather than getting a closure of the RfC above? Note also that the closure was not "no consensus" but "no consensus to describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi and consensus to mention him in connection to neo-Nazism". Either we respect the previous closure by reinstating it, and remove 1 as an option here (even though it's my personal preference), or we get another closure and wait to see what it says to see if another RfC is necessary (and if so, what its remit should be). — Bilorv (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: the reversion of the close was inappropriate, as I pointed out at the review debate at WP:AN. Obviously I have no power to reinstate it, being involved myself, but the rough consensus from that discussion so far is that it was a legitimate close and it should still be respected.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm with Bilorv. If we're not going to respect the original close of the RFC above, then this new discussion is redundant. I have removed my comment which was previously here (see history if need be) and do not intend to participate further. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• #1 (first choice), #2 (second choice - with Ivanvector's adjustment), oppose #3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• 2. Sensible compromise, which allows us to discuss the issue without actually stating the fact in Wikipedia's voice, which I think is inappropriate for reasons stated in the previous RFC. Not sure what Ivanvector's adjustment is, so can't comment on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• 1, if we're doing this. Strong oppose 2 and 3 as improperly downplaying the sources. Also, a reminder that the status quo stands until / unless we reach a consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. None of the above, something else. This is a very poor, rushed RfC. The 3 choice closed option choice unreasonably biases the RfC. It is not consistent with the still running RfC above. It is non-compliant with WP:VOICE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support #4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC should be closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a bizarre statement given that the majority view of the RFC above is one of the options, the secondary view is a second option, and the minority view is the third. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s because the previous RfC is still running. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me what's happening, I know how it this turns out but I'm waiting for the third RfC so I can binge watch. ~ cygnis insignis 15:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: the above RFC is now re-closed, and an admin has indicated that this new RFC is now the way forward. I'm interested in your comment that none of the three options presented are compliant with WP:VOICE; would you care to elaborate? I agree that #1 expresses something in WP's voice that is not universally held as true by sources, which is why I oppose that, but not sure why that would be an objection to #2 and #3. Presumably, as well, if you want to suggest an alternative fourth option, you are welcome to do so, and we can consider it? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• 2 1 is too far; 3 is not enough. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• 2 seems to be the consensus of the top reliable sources. – Levivich 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Modified 2 (exclusively; oppose 1 and 3) per the original close of the first RfC. Restoring the comment I removed now that that mess has been rectified and because others here have referred to my "modification", which was this: he should be described as a white supremacist and white nationalist with close ties to Neo-Nazis, i.e. he doesn't "have close ties" to white nationalists, he is described by RS as being a white nationalist himself. At least, that's how I read it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• 2 per what was said above. I think it is verified and reflects what reliable sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Now the RfC above has been closed as no consensus, this RfC makes sense, and I can now !vote for 1. Spencer has given a Nazi salute without irony, been unabashed in using Nazi phrases and proclaimed support for Rockwell's tactics in founding the American Nazi Party. Unsurprisingly, sources reflect these facts and they call him a neo-Nazi. So should we. Let's not advocate a compromise between a position that matches reliable sources and a position that skirts around what reliable sources say. — Bilorv (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• 1. As I commented in the original RfC, I think adequate sources have already been provided that back up the description as a Neo-Nazi. I think "white supremacist and neo-Nazi" would work too. Ralbegen (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• 1. per Bilorv. I checked the sources on the Nazi salute and statements. Yes, it's sourced. Here's one with a photo from CBS News. And there are more sources in the article. He's claimed these alliances for himself, we might as well name them accurately. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• 1 Wikipedia should not be in the business of providing rhetorical cover for nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• But I'd be willing to compromise to 2.1 if absolutely necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• 1 failing that 2.1. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• 1 per sources in the article ([10] [11] [12] [13]). If it walks like a duck... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

new scandal

Said some pretty yikes worthy things on tape, here are my sources https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/4/20947833/richard-spencer-white-nationalism-audio-milo-alt-right https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/white-supremacist-richard-spencer-racist-slurs-tape-milo-yiannopoulos Should probably be mentioned in the article. can't write it myself because my English is really bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.171.152.21 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fourteen Words

Spencer is an advocate of the Fourteen Words, a white supremacist slogan, and has promoted it. Despite his support, he has clarified that he would prefer to merge the alt-right and alt-lite into one political force, claiming that "If I wanted to create a movement that was 1488 white nationalist, I would have done that".

References

The source linking Spencer to the Fourteen Words is a blog, so insufficient. Google provides nothing more substantial. Guy (help!) 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to second paragraph of lede

The second paragraph is about the subject's Nazi rhetoric. As such, I have added information from a recent book about how Spencer would pressure supporters into giving the Seig Heil salute in early-to-mid 2017. This is clearly relevant to the subject of the paragraph.

I have removed the information about the Charlottesville deaths and lawsuits because it's not relevant to his use of Nazi rhetoric (subject of this paragraph). There are also BLP, NPOV, and notability concerns with this material (do we even know if the lawsuit went forward). It's better to focus on the fact that Charlottesville was a neo-Nazi rally ("Jews will not replace us!"), and therefore related to the subject's general interest in neo-Nazi rhetoric and themes and activism, than implying he is responsible for the violence at CHarlottesville.

Overall, I think my version is more neutral, on-topic, and concise than the previous version. But I'd be open to your thoughts. The diff is linked here for your reference. GergisBaki (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, Charlottesville is what brought Spencer to public notice. Guy (help!) 18:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure implying he is responsible for the murder there is in keeping with BLP. It sounds like we're taking an opinion on a highly controversial issue (are speakers who promote hate/Nazism responsible for murders carried out by others in the name of these ideologies?)

In any case, if we mention the death Charlottesville and try to tie it to him, this should be in the next paragraph, about allegations of violence against the subject (the alleged wife-beating). A big problem the lede has no is a lack of clear organization.

Why would you delete my other information? It's clearly relevant to the paragraph about his Nazi rhetoric that the BLP pressured supporters into giving him the Seig Heil salute, back when he had an active following. GergisBaki (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, WP:BRD. That's how it works. Guy (help!) 09:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK so let's discuss. I think Charlottesville absolutely should be included (though Spencer was well-known and widely interviewed long before then, for "Hail Trump"), as it represents one of the most high-profile neo-Nazi/white supremacist gatherings in which he spoke. I do not think that the death of Heyer should be included because of the BLP/SYN concerns I have raised. If we are to include it, it should be included in the subsequent paragraph about the wife beating, for more logical flow (since the subject of paragraph 2 is Nazi rhetoric and the 3rd is alleged violence by the BLP).

What do you think? Also, can you give me a reason why my sourced material about the BLP pressuring followers to Seig Heil should be removed? GergisBaki (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding the sieg-heiling, the Charlottesville content needs to stay because it's subject to an ongoing trial. As Spencer says, "This lawsuit that I am facing is just totally detrimental to what I am doing". Yes, that's very much the idea. So this legal case stemming fomr the events in Charlotte is clearly significant. Guy (help!) 10:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@GergisBaki: whether you like it or not you appear to be pushing a political POV in the guise of neutrality. Please avoid this. Many thanks. ——SN54129 11:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@SR 54129, Can you please be specific as to which "PoV" I'm pushing? If you're saying I'm biased in favor Spencer (who favors ethnic cleansing of people like me from the US), that is an absurdity that I do not wish to discuss. If you're saying I'm biased against Spencer, please specify how (a bare accusation without any specifics isn't helpful), and note that I've argued for removing some derogatory information about him (the link between him and Charlottesville), on policy grounds. GergisBaki (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy I'm going to re-add the information about him pressuring his followers to give him the Seig Heil salute him later (this is from the new Andrew Marantz book about the alt right), and I'm glad we agree on the relevance of this information to the second paragraph. After reading your source, I agree with you that the information about the trial should stay, since it's ongoing, widely covered, and Spencer himself is making a big deal out of it. For purposes of organization, however (the paragraphs in the current lede are hard to read since they seem to be stuffed with random information), I suggest putting the allegations of inciting murder (From the lawsuit) in the third paragraph, which is about other alleged criminality. We can also put the stuff about the attempted murder by his supporters (leading to the end of his college tour) there. How does that sound to you? GergisBaki (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, yes, that looks better. Guy (help!) 13:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this approach of inserting all these examples of the Nazi or other stuff in the Lede - such explication belongs in the body of the article. The Lede is overwhelmed with way too much detail, and such examples and length properly belongs in the body of the article. All this business about the Nazi salute is much less important than that he was considered an organizer of rallies in Charlottesville that gathered al-right groups. I recommend most of this 2nd paragraph go somewhere in the article, not the Lede. Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I've made some changes to the paragraph in question in this edit. My view is that we could summarise these incidents broadly in a sentence or two (e.g. "Spencer has quoted Nazi propaganda, given Nazi salutes and allegedly encouraged followers to do the same. Some of these incidents were in response to his celebration of the election of Donald Trump.") I have moved details from this paragraph into the body of the article, but I've refrained from removing them from the lead as I see we don't have consensus here. — Bilorv (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

Look, he may not have been a good guy, but that gives us no right to call him a neo-nazi or anything like that. 2601:246:CF80:67F0:A52D:45F9:B855:4037 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We say whatever reliable sources say. The end of the sentence in which he's described as a neo-Nazi has a reference to nine varied and high-quality sources which verify the claim. Or take a look at the second paragraph of the lead: Nazi salutes, openly quoting Nazi propaganda and even praising the founder of the American Nazi Party for his political tactics. There's been thousands of words of discussion on this talk page about whether the sources justify the description and current consensus is that it does. — Bilorv (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sieg-heiling does tend to end up with you being identified as a neo-Nazi. Not really our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 10:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv and JzG: None of the sources listed refer to Spencer as a neo-Nazi. This is a problem. On the other hand, if multiple, high-quality sources are consistently referring to him as a white supremacist, but not a neo-Nazi, then we should be following suit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't have access to a couple of the sources but I thought some of them described him as a neo-Nazi. Newspapers such as The Independent and The Times have described Spencer as a neo-Nazi in the newspaper's own words. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Describing a living person as a neo-Nazi is a strong claim which requires exceptionally high-quality sourcing. Headlines only & citogenetic passing mentions are not reliable sources. Inclusion of the term in Wikipedia's voice is also contrary to the outcome of this RfC. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the second one (beyond the first few paragraphs or so) without a trial or something, so that could conceivably change the situation if there's something in there that runs against what I'm about to say here. The first one certainly does, but it does so in the headline only and makes no actual attempt to back that statement up. This is pretty blatant click-baiting for the interview, and not something that can be used here. A claim like this, in the lead, should be impeccably sourced and have a sufficient quantity of information in the body of the article to justify how we're labeling the person, in the very first sentence. Here, there's neither. Even if you can find a more-or-less otherwise reliable source that calls him the N-word, the fact that a hefty majority of reliable sources are specifically not doing so is reason enough to not do so here. Cherry picking the one or two sources that do assigns undue weight to them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Times offers free access. The story is about YouTube having paid money to a Mark Collett, former BNP member, for SuperChats; not about Spencer. Spencer appears once, in the text Analysis by Storyful reveals Collett has earned £7,265.93 from 36 videos, including live discussions with David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who led the Unite the Right white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Our article at the time described Spencer as a neo-Nazi. (cf. WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:CITOGENESIS). Articles should be based on sources which are primarily about the article subject, not sources in which they are peripheral; and not on Google searches to fit predetermined viewpoints. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi who coined the phrase “alt-right,” saluted “Hail Trump” at an alt-right press conference, and dined at an Italian chain restaurant under an alias, can no longer lift weights at his Alexandria, Virginia, gym. NY Mag. What Foster Wallace saw in a Federer Moment, I see in a video of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched in the face. The Nation. Who are these reliable bastions of American journalistic tradition talking about? A neo-Nazi. Mic.Spencer rose to fame for being a clean-cut, palatable spokesman for neo-Nazism and white nationalism—he wears expensive clothing, keeps his hair perfectly coiffed in a "Hitler Youth-esque" cut, and uses academic language to advocate for his views in interviews, on Twitter, and through his organizations, the National Policy Institute and Radix Journal. But his charming veneer doesn't mean he's not an abuser (or a neo-Nazi, for that matter). Pacific Standard. All reliable sources, all articles specifically about Spencer. Additional sources: Back in April, I reported that the members of Bannon’s ideological world were coming to realize that associating with the “alt-right”—a term also used by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer to describe his own movement—was poisonous to their cause. Vanity Fair. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional source: Days of Awe, published by the University of Chicago Press. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional source: What do you do when anti-Semites, stirred up by a guy you see at the local coffee shop and the gym, send you doctored pictures of your child's face beneath the gates of Auschwitz? When they clog your phone lines with threats to "finish the job" for Hitler and gas you? When they promise to send an army of anti-Semites marching through your town? If you live in this small, ski resort town where neo-Nazi Richard Spencer — the alt-right darling who has been called "a kind of professional racist in khakis" — has put down roots, you fight back. Religion News Service. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Multiple reputable sources have labelled him a new-Nazi. It’s ok to state that in the text, but not in the voice of Wikipedia. If he does not, in a reliable source, self-declare as new-Nazi, do not state that he is, and do not categorise him as one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• That's not how Wikipedia works - we rely on reliable sources, not self-declaration. Someone might strenuously deny being a white supremacist, but if reliable sources call them a white supremacist, we describe them as a white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. “Neo-Nazi” and “White supremacist” are negative terms, and so require the highest quality sources. Newspapers and opinion pieces are not the highest quality sources for the labelling of a person. I haven’t seen high quality sources label him so, although I may have missed some. By using softened text, “[sources XYZ] describe Spencer as a Neo-Nazi”, a lesser burden of quality of source is required, the source is not required to definitively characterise him by this term, but merely that the source did. However, if he self-labels, the burden is reduced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, “Spencer doesn’t consider himself a Nazi” [14]. If we accept this source as reliable, it says that Spencer disputes the label. As to whether Spencer does or not, I have not found a better source. Including a label in the article that the subject disputes requires extraordinary sourcing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Acceptable wording choices might include: “Spencer is widely characterized as a Neo-Nazi”. Give 3 example references. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72’s interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic. If the Times explicitly calls him a neo-Nazi, it matters not one jot whether the story is primarily about him or not. SmokeyJoe’s point is much better, but if multiple high quality sources agree and nobody explicitly dissents then at some point we can drop the false balance and just use wiki voice. Guy (help!) 10:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am touched by the description, but do feel that the interpretation is a reasonable one, not overly peculiar, considering that WP:RSCONTEXT has Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

+1, yeah sources that are primarily about Spencer should be used to characterize him as a neo-Nazi (if there aren't any good sources directly about him that do call him a neo-Nazi then that certainly questions putting that in the lead sentence in wikivoice) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, The Times is a very strong source. The characterisation is not, it seems, disputed in other sources of equal quality. The use of the Hitlergruß is a bit of a giveaway, after all. Guy (help!) 13:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Not one of these sources is explaining how he's a neo-nazi; they're just repeating, labeling him as such without backing it up. That's not something that we should be repeating, especially in the first friggin' sentence without us backing it up. What these sources are doing is documenting him as a white supremacist, something that gets the point across without trying appeal to all the extra emotional baggage that seeing "nazi" next to one's name entails. Just because someone's a Bad Person doesn't mean we get to ignore normal BLP stuff. The article is sufficiently and heavily negative without adding the unjustified "neo-nazi" label in the first sentence. And just because no sources have specifically refuted calling him a nazi is irrelevant. If random other sources are incorrectly labeling him, why should they? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, explaining how he's a neo-Nazi? The sources extensively discuss his racial hatred, his anti-Semitism, his use of Nazi rhetoric and the Nazi salute - are you demanding that we have a picture of him kissing Adolf Hitler's cremated corpse? What sources or evidence do you have to support your claim that the sources labeling him a neo-Nazi are incorrectly labeling him? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is the old argument "your source isn't sourced". Where is this policy or guideline? As for him denying he's a neo-Nazi, besides the fact that people lie, who knows what he means? Maybe he wouldn't deny being a Nazi but doesn't like "neo", or maybe he's a Hitler supporter that has other reasons for disliking the label, perhaps technical ones about definitions. We know that white supremacists have begun publicity savvy and call themselves white nationalists instead. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than address the reliable sources I have cited, Deacon Vorbis has simply reverted and removed those sources. There is no consensus for the removal of the longstanding and reliably-sourced description of Richard B. Spencer as a neo-Nazi, and rather than revert-war, I request that DV self-revert. An RFC determined that there was consensus for either describing Spencer as a neo-Nazi or as having close ties to the neo-Nazi movement. One of these statements must be in the lede per prior RFC consensus. If DV wishes to change that consensus, I certainly welcome the opportunity to have another RFC on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC is an excellent idea. And Deacon Vorbis's input would be invaluable. ——SN54129 18:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

An RfC on the matter was held in May of this year. NBSB was the first respondent. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The most recent RFC was in August, linked above, and was closed as per above - a rough consensus that the article must either describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi or as having close ties to the neo-Nazi movement. If DV or anyone else wants to run another RFC, I am fine with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, another starting in August and closing in October. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you both, for those links. In which case, it is likely that—per policy—another RfC so soon after would be viewed as shopping. After all, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive, as we know. ——SN54129 18:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

" a rough consensus that the article must either describe Spencer as a neo-Nazi or as having close ties to the neo-Nazi movement" - Who decides articles must be POV. 105.4.6.67 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't article be renamed?

I read this: [15]. Seems like no one uses the "B" middle initial to refer to this guy. Shouldn't the article be renamed to "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)" ? To avoid confusion with the Secretary of the Navy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.64.215 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. I think the most recent was Dec, 2017, which didn't go anywhere. Ultimately we use reliable sources for deciding these things. Since his own beliefs are now more clearly documented, sources are less likely to accommodate his public relations, so it might be an appropriate time to discuss it again. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

In this edit, Cherio222 comments that The quoted phrase "White Imperium" is not contained in any references used -- where does it come from? Indeed, I can't find it either, or the quote "white racial empire" (only "racial empire" from RadixJournal). I think the lead was better in this version, before some recent edits by GergisBaki, both in sticking to what the sources say and in conciseness and avoidance of repetition (and avoidance of repetition). However, it still contains "white racial empire" as a quote, whereas I think we should use the same term but without quotation marks, unless someone has a source of the full three-word phrase being used by Spencer. — Bilorv (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have additionally failed to verify Spencer's views on George Lincoln Rockwell in any of the several following references. However, one of those references is the Washington Post, and I am not a subscriber, so I could not read through it to see if it mentions Spencer. Cherio222 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It says "Spencer said Rockwell’s Nazi uniform was “unproductive” but admired some of his tactics. “There was a trolling aspect to what he was doing, so you could connect him to some of the trolls on Twitter,” he told The Post. “Shock can be a positive means to an end.” "Doug Weller talk 15:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm not hearing much dispute that we should restore the lead to the more stable one for the time being, so I've done so, and additionally removed quote marks from "white racial empire" as it's not a direct quote. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lede is too long, and TMI

The Lede is supposed to be a summary of the most important facts in the article, not a separate place for detailed quotations, allegations by his wife in her suit. It is overburdened with details. Editors are not supposed to be proving allegations here, but providing summary of well-sourced material from the basic article. The Lede needs to be made more concise and summarized - put the quotes in the article.Parkwells (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've moved some quotes down to the body and replaced them with what court documents say. I hope you'll agree that a person being a domestic abuser is an important fact about them, and that's what Kouprianova credibly alleges, and that's why an overview of the material is appropriate for the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the lead should primarily summarize his activities and reasons for notability; it is made unusually long by summarizing his views in greater detail than relevant. Compare to the lead for Jared Taylor; views are summarized in a single sentence. Cherio222 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Spencer is more notable for his views than he is for any particular one of his activities—look at the body of the article and what most reliable sources about him discuss. I don't know how this compares to Taylor. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Openly embraces the term White Supremacist

He openly embraces this term? I’ve heard him say quite the opposite. CITATION PLEASE. Tis Hatcher-piece article doesn’t even cite their source for this claim. He critiques the existence of “hobbit states” like Poland and Hungary? What the hell does that even mean? Again, CITATION NEEDED. 50.228.126.226 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve heard him say quite the opposite. CITATION PLEASE

You first: what's YOUR citation for him saying the opposite? Let's start with that. --Calton | Talk 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You are making the claim. You need provide the citation. Peedporch (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A section on Nazi rhetoric

It would be interesting to have a (sub-)section listing Spencer's use of Nazi rhetoric. This is mentioned in the lede, but disseminated in various sections of the article. Also, Spencer's famous reference[16][17][18] to the Lügenpresse (German: lying press or press of lies) is absent from the article. Alcaios (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Bar-On source

Regarding this edit, I am concerned that by over-relying on the Tamir Bar-On source, we are providing excessive detail for Spencer's views. Spencer has spent his entire career promoting himself as an intellectual voice for white supremacy, but as many observers have pointed out, none of this really holds up to scrutiny in practice. By presenting a specific break-down of his exact views, we risk false precision and back-door promotion.

It is reasonable for an academic to document these names and to research who is being cited, how often, why, and so on, but this doesn't necessarily reflect on Spencer's actual views, and even if it does, it isn't necessarily connected to why there is an encyclopedia article about him.

To put it another way, Spencer loves name-dropping precisely because it implies his views have intellectual heft, but when anyone has tried to pin-down how this would work in practice, he becomes extremely evasive and dismissive. He is (or was) a publisher of far-right/"New Right" book, so it makes sense that he would mention or cite many similar writers. His ability to pseudo-intellectualize his own views may be a form of salesmanship, but it is not a reflection on the significance of those views.

Several sources have commented on Spencer's use of "bad Nietzsche" as one example. How much stuff like this belongs is certainly debatable, but the article should reflect all reliable sources in proportion to due weight. Just because a wikilinked name can be supported doesn't mean it will be helpful to readers. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

'Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist'

This claim does not currently have a citation next to it. I have read all the online sources under citation [5] and none of those make that claim. Can someone point out which source makes this claim and put the citation next to the claim? Otherwise it should not really be there. Peedporch (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Peedporch, the lead does not need inline citations for material that's in the body. See WP:LEDECITE. Example source: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-richard-spencer-screams-he-s-a-nazi-when-will-cnn-book-him-next-1.8085361?=&ts=_1580669901577.

It's hard to be a neo-Nazi without being anti-semitic, really. That's kind of definitional. Guy (help!) 23:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thay may be but according to Wikipedia the claim needs a source and primary research does not count. He is an anti semite but is there a source of him being anti semitic conspiracy theorist? That link doesn't say so. Am I missing something? Peedporch (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence of this claim because it is incorrect. He is also a White Nationalist and NOT a white supremacist. these are all false allegations by people who have never actually listened to him speak.DarkShadow667 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information in article

Richard Spencer is a Democrat. He professed his support for Joe Biden on 08/25/2020. The article needs to remove the "alt-right" statements and update with his current views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22garrett (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — 22garrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Spencer is still himself a member of the alt-right--or whether he labels himself as such, a separate thing again--reliable sources still describe his "activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017" (from the lead) as important and perhaps character-defining. A Newsweek article describing Spencer's recent Biden endorsement describes him as one "who was one of the key figureheads of the alt-right movement". A Jewish Press article describes him as "infamous for his activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017". So it seems that the way we describe his alt-right affiliations in the article is still common in the present-day reliable sources. Jlevi (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well then no we cannot remove Alt-right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Garrett, what exactly does "is a Democrat" mean? Just because, say, Colin Powell states he is going to vote for Biden this year, that does not automatically confer party membership upon him. ValarianB (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have trimmed this section to avoid over-emphasizing quotes. Spencer attempts to be a pundit, so he says a lot whenever anyone gives him a platform. I doubt any of these hot takes will have lasting significance, but this would be demonstrated by better sources. I think restraint is called for to avoid gossip and election-related WP:FARTs. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Spencer endorses Biden

For some reason this seems to be a controversial addition to the article. The reference: Was asked to gain consensus on the talk page before including this. Where should it go? DoSazunielle (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed version, there are several problems.

First, it's already mentioned in the article at Richard B. Spencer#Donald Trump. This single sentence seems sufficient.

Second, nowhere does the cited source say he "surprised" anyone, much less that he even has "many supporters" to surprise. It's also not clear how the Biden campaign "attempted" to disavow the endorsement. The source makes it pretty clear that this was a forceful disavowal:

Shortly after, Biden's campaign forcefully disavowed Spencer's endorsement. "When Joe Biden says we are in a battle for the soul of our nation against vile forces of hate who have come crawling out from under rocks, you are the epitome of what he means," Andrew Bates, the rapid-response director for the Biden campaign, tweeted. "What you stand for is absolutely repugnant. Your support is 10,000% percent unwelcome here."

As I've said before, such as the section right above this one, all of this needs to be weighed carefully. Spencer is not an expert in anything. Since his "endorsement" was not sought nor expected, this must treated as a publicity stunt and Wikipedia isn't a platform for publicity stunts. Just because a tweet was mentioned doesn't mean we need to include a full quote in this article. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Missed that it was already mentioned in the article - that looks fine to me. The rest of the concerns about the language used aren't essential to what I was trying to do, which is make sure that this was mentioned. DoSazunielle (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

This is relevant enough to go in the body of the article but clearly not relevant enough for the lede; this is not something for which Spencer is primarily known (his white supremacist advocacy, circa 2016-2017, is what he is known for). CozyandDozy (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

slav

I does not make sence very much for me. On one side he is speaking about genocide of Slavs but on other side he maried a russian woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.172.120 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Wife abuse in lead

Should the following text be included in the lead, as the final sentence of the fourth paragraph?

Spencer has also been accused in court proceedings of repeatedly beating and otherwise physically abusing his ex-wife Nina Kouprianova, including when she was 4 months pregnant, and frequently in front of their children.

ValarianB has expressed opposition while myself and CozyandDozy have supported inclusion. I believe the last discussion about this was at Talk:Richard_B._Spencer/Archive_6#The_lead, which didn't reach a decisive consensus. From my perspective, there is no reason to exclude this significant part of the subject's life and coverage in reliable sources when it can comfortably fit in the existing fourth paragraph. I see no BLP issue in repeating uncontested, non-editorial fact (court proceedings have taken place relating to subject X). — Bilorv (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that the accusation (and that is all it is) of repeatedly beating and otherwise physically abusing his ex-wife Nina Kouprianova is a "significant part of the subject's life". If he is found guilty that might be a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why might that be different? We rely on reliable secondary sources in determining due weight, not legal systems of one particular country. But if you want to go the legal route, it is of course not simply an "accusation" but a lot of sworn testimony and evidence provided by multiple people. — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

wp:blp, we do not include salacious accusations in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I find the use of the word "salacious" [titillating or relating to sexual desire] on the topic of physical violence against women (whether it happened or not) quite hurtful—could you find another word? You'll have to point me to the part of WP:BLP which distinguishes content appropriate for the body but not the lead because I'm having trouble finding it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

NOt in itself, but MOS:LEADBIO point to BLP and WP:BLPCRIME is clear "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." whilst leadbio says "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. ". Thus to have in the lead an unproven accusations (I would argue) violates the spirit of LEADBIO and BLP. MOS:LEAD is also clear, the lead is a summary of the article. This material is one paragraph, in the body, thus its inclusion in the lead is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sines v. Kessler verdict

Looks like the jury reached a verdict in the case in the last hour or so. I've added an initial sentence from the Sines v. Kessler page, as well as a reaction from Spencer on his intent to appeal. I'm also currently reading through other sources to see if I can find more information on what charges he was found liable on, but given that this seems to be just happening, it's not entirely clear yet.

Sources I'm reading at the moment: Mother Jones, NBC News, The Independent, MSN, Reuters, Washington Post, note WaPo is a "live update" style page so there might be a better one to link to later. BBC.

I'll be adding more to this as I read it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've added the information relevant only to Spencer. At least all that exists at the current time. There may be more to follow in the coming hours and days, but this at least gets the basics of the verdict in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

There's a "not to be confused with..." note at the top that identifies Robert B. Spencer as an "American islamophobe" and I'm pretty sure that's a WP:BLP violation. I mean, the article itself never identifies him as such (though apparently, he has referred to himself with the label), but rather as an "anti-Muslim author", which seems a more neutral term.

Don't get me wrong, the article makes the guy seem like "islamophobe" is a fair way to describe him, but I don't feel like it meets the standards we have for such things. Compare to Donald Trump, whom it's totally fair to call a con-man, but which we don't say about him. It carries a lot of pejorative weight for an academic work. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not autoconfirmed yet. Happy (Slap me) 17:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Replaced it with “anti-Islam blogger and author” Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy (Slap me) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

In the section titled Sines v. Kessler, Judge Norman K. Moon is noted as a federal magistrate judge. That is incorrect. Judge Moon is a district judge. Here is the relevant quote: "In June 2020, Norman K. Moon, the federal magistrate judge presiding over Sines v. Kessler ...". It should state, "In June 2020, Norman K. Moon, the federal district judge presiding over Sines v. Kessler ...".

A small change but we want to give Judge Moon his due! Grantmcclernon (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't actually see where the source for this paragraph ([19]) mentions Moon at all, so the paragraph may need more sources anyway, and pruning of anything that is not verifiable. — Bilorv (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done . I have also reused a source for the first part of that sentence Aaron Liu (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We should edit the short description to say "American neo-nazi."

"Neo-nazi" is a more specific term since neo-nazis are white supremacists but with the addition of being anti-semetic, etc. It's kind of like how squares are rectangles and if something is a square the best description is "square" and not "rectangle." TrickshotsBSYT (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)