Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Jared Taylor

I only came onto this article seeing it mentioned in an ArbCom report and noticed what I believe was a significant BLP violation (but otherwise have no interest in editing the article). There was a edit war that broke out based on a comment I had made at ArbCom, and while I voiced my opinion on the talk page and a subsequent WP:AN/EW report, I think this is a point that needs to be addressed.

Currently, the Jared Taylor article ledes off as Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. There is no denying that popular press opinion is that he has views that align with white supremacy and the AR publication is also taken to be a white supremacist publication. His notability appears to be explicitly tied to how his views are taken as such. These are well-sourced statements that are covered in Taylor's article under "Views" and on the American Renaissance (magazine). But both the "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" labels appear to be terms that Taylor actively denies stating he is (through non-SELFPUB articles in reliable sources like the WSJ). As such, having both of these terms in the lede, to me, screams a BLP violation in favoring what others have said with subjective and potentially libelous language over what he claims he is. (In contrast, if someone was convicted for committing murder but they claimed they were innocent even after the convinction, that conviction is an objective measure so stating the person is a convicted murderer over their claims of innocence is reasonable under BLP/POV).

I do not discount the need to express what the popular press opinion of him is in the lede - that can be done after a few sentences that are neutral to establish the basic facts about Taylor. But having those statements in the first sentence is a major POV and BLP issue, creating a specific negative tone for the article, at least to me. I'm looking to get additional opinions on this. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If a notable person doesn't want to have the descriptors "white nationalist" and "white supremacy" associated with himself, then perhaps he shouldn't publicly espouse views and publish articles that endorse white nationalism and white supremacy. That's why we rely on secondary sources at Wikipedia - Jared Taylor can proclaim he isn't a white nationalist until the day he dies, but if reliable sources describe him as such (which they do), then that's how he's described here. I don't see how it's a POV issue at all. Should we strike the mentions of murder from Charles Manson's page because they "create a specific negative tone for the article"? That's nonsense. Rockypedia (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rockypedia here. I have only passing knowledge of this article and its subject, but I have a broad interest in proper weighting of reliable sources as against statements originating with the subject themselves. This is obviously a BLP issue, and so must be approached very carefully. But BLP concerns can be allayed by strong sourcing. While it's absolutely proper in some instances to take a subject's own thoughts and statments into account (per WP:BLPSELFPUB and others) at best, that's one part of a constellation of sources. Furthermore, in cases where the "negative" bits are a primary driver of notability, I think there's no choice but to squarely address them. Whether in the lead or elsewhere, this is, to me, a question of sourcing. Either it is strong (as I think it is here), and thus can and should be used, or it is not, and it should be excised entirely. Just my thoughts. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

e/c ::It's NOT what he's noted for and he "strenuously" denies he's a White Nationalist. I think it's bias, slander to say that in the lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But he is noted for founding and editing American Renaissance, which is widely considered a white nationalist supremacist publication. He can deny it all he wants, but his actions speak louder than his words. clpo13_(talk) 17:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that he founded and edits American Renaissance. This dispute is about whether criticism should be hooked onto the AmRen rack in an attempt to indirectly state something as fact about the nominal subject.

I don't have a problem with the criticism in the second paragraph of the lede on Jared Taylor as Taylor and organizations he's associated with have been said to promote racist ideologies (black/white/yellowm/blue supremacy are racist ideologies) and it's worded as it should be, but I would and do have a problem when that criticism is tacked on to indirectly state "Samuel Jared Taylor is a racist/supremacist/bad guy" as fact.

This is a BLP and POV issue, and symptomatic of the larger problem of bias in left-right articles on wikipedia. Zaostao (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question for me is this, Zaostao could there ever be enough RSes calling Mr. Taylor a "white nationalist" for you to agree it's proper to describe him as such? I'd be curious to know your answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about the white supremacist hook, not the Taylor-white nationalism association--which I've never argued against. Please stay on topic. Zaostao (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Do forgive me. Allow me to restate. The question for me is this, Zaostao could there ever be enough RSes calling Mr. Taylor's magazine a "white supremacist" publication for you to agree it's proper to describe it as such? I'd be curious to know your answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the white supremacist description of American Renaissance—it's more of an Asian/Ashkenazi supremacist magazine if anything as it has presented data about Asians/Ashkenazim having on average higher IQs than whites and such—but I have no problem with its own article stating that it has been "described as a white supremacist publication by sources" or such. The issue is about taking that description of it by various sources (no matter how reliable) and hooking it into the article in discussion's lede in an attempt to state as fact that Taylor is a white supremacist--which I would never agree with as it's a BLP vio, no. Zaostao (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(As an aside, how I read the situation and comments by Taylor, the white nationalism part may or may not be as contentious which is I noted it, but certainly the white supremacy connection is a very real issue of discussion given Taylor's denial of it). --MASEM (t) 19:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious of your opinion as well, Masem. Surely there must be a critical mass of RSes possible that we could report something like that, no matter what the subject says, right? I'm not saying you have to agree it's the case here, but it could happen, no? Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For a subjective label like "white supremacist", which the living person or active organization deny, there is no critical mass of sources to allow us to lead off an article about that person or organization calling them tied to white supremacy. A critical mass of sources saying that would make it a valid part in discussing the criticism of that person or organization and their views, and the larger the mass, the more likely that will appear in the lede under WEIGHT, but you don't lead off an article with POV statements. You start it off with neutral and factual information. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then I guess the issue is simply that you are giving the subject of the article undue weight, from my point of view. As my grandmother liked to say, à chacun son goût. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor has also personally rejected the white nationalist descriptor, and I think the article should probably state Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race-realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. and so on. This was how the article had been for a lot of its existence (here's a 2year old revision for example), but the supremacy link is main BLP issue here, I agree. (Here's a screengrab of what I believe would be a neutral lede consistent with BLP and NPOV, does anyone object to something like this?) Zaostao (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that white supremacist is any more a subjective label than calling somebody a capitalist or a feminist. While we should take care to not cause undue harm to the living subjects of our articles, the weight of reliable sources is such that describing Jared Taylor as a white supremacist is necessary. We can also include his own preferred label, 'race realist', but we shouldn't be trying to remove well sourced and notable content from articles because it viewed as negative by some people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Belief in the supremacy of one race is the stock definition of racism. Racist is a contentious label, and there's already a separate paragraph in the lede devoted to statements by sources which claim that Taylor (a living person) and the organizations he's associated with "are often described as promoting racist ideologies". Zaostao (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Science is objective. Social science is subjective. This is "more subjective" because he disputes it. We wouldn't call someone a capitalist or feminist in the lede of their article if they dispute that characterization because however many people have that opinion it's still just an opinion. We don't allow the weight of reliable sources to identify gender against the subject's wishes, we shouldn't allow them to identify ideologies against them either. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, science is both. Experimental science is objective, in that it gathers facts. Theoretical science is subjective, as it deals with taking those facts and concluding a reason for them. (See: Philosophy of Scientific Method or similar publications) This goes for social sciences just as much as any other.

The question I'd ask myself is not whether this is a violation of policy, because it clearly is not as it has been so widely reported. Instead, is it really necessary to give readers that conclusion, or would it be better to let them make up their own minds based upon the facts? Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That rests on whether the nature of American Renaissance is relevant to Taylor's article. I personally think it's relevant enough for an extra couple words, but that's just me. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is important to associate Talyor to AR (given he runs it), and it is appropriate to give context to AR since it is not a household name. But as the first sentence of that article, it shouldn't be contentious language that Taylor denies he or the work is. Later, like in the second lede paragraph to summarize his views and criticism of them, sure. But not to lead the article off with. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying this is contentious. Contenious: disputed, debatable, controversial. Does anyone who is not a white nationalist dispute the label as applied to Taylor? As far as I'm aware, labels like these are routinely used on Wikipedia, and prominently, so long as they are very well sourced, even when disputed by the bearer. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. At best it's poor writing. The lede should primarily describe what the subject is, leaving the opinions (reasons/theories/POVs) for the body. As far as order-of-importance goes, the what is the most important answer by far, and the why is usually the least important answer, thus is usually given last. At worst, its a little insulting to be led to an obvious conclusion. It's something like starting an article this way, "Darth Vader is the evil, human-supremacist leader of the Imperial military..." or some such nonsense. It's just not very formal or encyclopedic. IMHO, we shouldn't just mimic the sources, but strive to do better. Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's circular, seemingly everyone in these circles is a "white supremacist", "racist" or whatever, and so their opinions are FRINGE and not worthy of being in an encylopedia, leaving only the opinions of people who screech "racist" or other such terms non-stop being heard... This is most notably seen with quite obscure people like Jared Taylor where there's little opposition and even less admin action, but also is seen with high-profile figures such as Trump (there was talk page consensus to call him a racist at one point, which had RS just as this case has RS and would have likely gone through if there wasn't strong NPOV opposition and admin attention) and Putin (one of the editors involved in this case pushing for "white supremacist" to be included regularly states as fact things such as Putin funding "Neo-Nazi", "fascist", "racist" and other buzzwords, parties in Europe as well as outright section blanks in the lede of a world leader's article). I've only been editing in these topics for a few months but this seems to hold true for nearly every left-right article. It's just uncompromising ideologues attempting to OWN articles, and the only way to combat that seems to be by being an uncompromising ideologue yourself and making yourself as annoying and time-consuming as possible to interact with. Zaostao (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Taylor has been described outright by numerous reliable sources as being a)a white nationalist, b)a white supremacist, c)guilty of having/stating racist & supremacist viewpoints. That is *aside* from the accusations against his magazine. Taylor has denied B & C outright while stating a self-identification that is synonymous with A (to anyone who isnt a nationalist). His notability is tied to his nationist/supremacist/racist views and publishing thereof, which is why it is in the lead. The only thing that should also be there for parity is that he has rejected some of those labels. Which is basically a one-line addition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on intent rather than execution. I think we can all agree that this is a content dispute rather than a BLP vio, so is probably best worked out on the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Zaereth, to put it broadly, those who don't think the "white supremacist" bit belongs in the lead are expressly arguing that it is a BLP violation (see Masem and Zaostao above). While I personally think you're quite right, at least to this point, this is not something on which we can all agree. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well not really. Even in Masem's opening statement he does not deny that reliable sources describe him as such. The BLP violation (as he sees it) is that it is unjustifiably given prominence in the lead while the subject denies the labels. I half-agree, in that without the subjects rejection being at least mentioned, it gives the impression of unfairness (note, I didnt say neutrality) - even if its reliably sourced. If the subject was notable for reasons that were unrelated to his white nationalism activities, that would be entirely reasonable argument and I would support yanking it from the lead completely. But Taylor is primarily/in a large significant part, notable because of his views and promotion of them. And as that is a significant part of his biography it gets reflected in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

More specically, my issue is putting this negative claims/contentious labels against him as the first/second sentence of the lede. That he is viewed to have white supremancy has to be included in the lede since that appears to be a fundamental reason why he has gained notability. But because that is a libelous statement, we should not be starting the article off by describing him or implying that in any way. We start with a grounded, factual statement, and perhaps one or two additional lines that are neutral, and then it's fine to get into how his views are criticized at large. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below, I agree with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Saying that, I do dislike labelling people 'contentious label' as if that defines them. Personally I would remove the first 'white nationalist' moniker and add a qualifier about his rejection at the end:

"Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor has been described as a white nationalist, and many of the organizations he is associated with have often been described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US, however he rejects these labels."

It makes it clear (multiple times) that he/his associations are pro-white and includes his rejection of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"And as that is a significant part of his biography it gets reflected in the lead." It already is represented in the lede, it has a paragraph devoted to it and nobody here is arguing for the removal of that information, I don't think. The discussion is about the attempt to indirectly state as fact that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist by using the American Renaissance coatrack to hook on that criticism.

I proposed this above but will do so again: what about a lede such as this? Zaostao (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race-realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

• here are some refs for the race-realism description. 1, 2, 3. Zaostao (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am personally okay with the proposed lead, but I think offering "American Renaissance" without indicating its views is a great disservice to the article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fair to later in the lede mention that both Taylor's views and that of articles published AR are considered racist/white supremacist, but it should not be the first thing attached to mention of the webzine if that is not what Taylor or the webzine purport to be about. It is fair to use its own language (from the AR article "race-realist, white advocacy organization") if there is a want to describe the work more than just asserting it is a webzine at its first mention in the first/second sentence of the lead. The issue is not to ignore the press's views on Taylor or his publication, but not to ignore the contentious nature of these on a BLP article when leading it off. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To me the claim is not contentious. There is, in fact, widespread agreement on it. This seems to verge on "opinions on shape of Earth differ" territory. But hey, it's Friday! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If a person has an article in Wikipedia because they were a murderer, the lead states that they were a murderer. Ted Bundy's article states in the first sentence that he was a "serial killer, kidnapper, rapist, and necrophile." These are all negative descriptions, far more negative than "white supremacist" or "white nationalist." If Bundy had disavowed any of those labels, would we remove them from the first sentence of his article? Of course not. Jared Taylor is described, repeatedly, by reliable neutral sources, not just as a "white nationalist" but a "white supremacist" (NY TImes:"Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists", Vox, ). Why are we debating removing these terms from lead? Because Jared Taylor might be offended by them? It's ridiculous. The lead is fine as is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A person convicted of being a murdered is an objective quality - a legal authority has made said decision based on law and evidence, and while they are negative aspects, they are undeniable aspects; its also why in Bundy's case they are most known for. Even if Bundy professed innocence after conviction, you can't change that objective measure that he was convicted. But calling someone a white supremacist is a subjective measure, with no authority to make that distinction between who is and isn't one. In this case, the person's denial means we should not highlight a negative subjective contentious label in the first or second sentence of the lede. Later, after we've introduced who Taylor in a factual manner, we can discuss those subjective takes on his views in lede (since that's what he appears notable for). If I were Taylor and found that WP highlighted the press's words over my own statement, I would be greatly offended. I would even argue that were Taylor silent on the matter - never countering the white supremacy term, but also not self-identifying as one, we would take the same approach. We do not let the press steamroll subjective labels onto living persons. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The driving force of BLP policy is respect for the individual. Our policy on gender identity (MOS:GENDERID) for example is entirely respect-based as misgendering poses no legal risk. By arguing our articles (especially the lede) shouldn't distinguish between subjective labels the individual rejects and subjective labels the individual embraces you're saying: individuals' opinions of themselves are irrelevant to wikipedia. That is the opposite of respect for the individual and completely contrary to the spirit of BLP.

I think everyone in this conversation agrees on this in theory. The distinction, and where the disagreement lies here, is whether we should apply that policy and spirit consistently or whether we make exceptions for "bad people" like Jared Taylor - which brings to mind this passage from A Man for All Seasons. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a poor comparison. You can't compare someones personal experience of their own gender to espousing views associated with racism and being upset when people say that's racist. Also, unrelated to the issue at hand, I do notice that the spouse and children params in the infobox are unsourced and there is no mention of them in the article, if someone could either add a source or remove them that would be great. — Strongjam (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a comparison - I mentioned MOS:GENDERID here to illustrate the purpose of the BLP policy. I don't take issue with the claims of racism, which we properly attribute. I take issue with "white supremacist" which includes a largely agreed upon set of beliefs, many of which the subject claims to reject, which makes it a contentious label, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lede of the article - no good. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is in any way a BLP violation/concern. If most RS identify this person primarily as a white nationalist, and place that description front-and-center in any discussion of him (which they overwhelmingly do in this case) then so should wikipedia. His denial of that label should be noted, obviously, but article subjects are not the final authority on how their political beliefs are described. We should treat him exactly the same way that RS such as the Washington Post do. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"article subjects are not the final authority on how their political beliefs are described". No one is an authority on determining political beliefs, certainly not the press; it is not like the case of someone being charged with murder where there is a legal authority to make the assertion. It is the individual who has the highest authority on what they claim they are, even if their claim is considered bogus by the rest of the world at large. As such, it is completely wrong to let a popular opinion of the press override what a living person has said about themselves as part of the leading statements in an article as to set a negative tone for the remainder of the article. (This is even moreso when considering this is left-leaning press talking about a right-leaning person). The criticism can be included but later after establishing a neutral tone for the article.--MASEM (t) 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is even moreso when considering this is left-leaning press talking about a right-leaning person Fox News: "Jared Taylor, who is white and calls himself a "race realist," believes that whites and Asians are more intelligent than Hispanics and blacks." While Mr. Taylor may not know what white supremacy is, his views are the text book definition. — Strongjam (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no place where Fox News calls Taylor a "white supremacist" or the like. And it is OR to say that a person's beliefs are "a textbook definition", particularly for a subjective term. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, you say "It is the individual who has the highest authority on what they claim they are, even if their claim is considered bogus by the rest of the world." But why should this be? Either inside Wikipedia or in the "real world?" I honestly don't get this claim. I think they're one source (reliable or not) among many. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, BLP rests on respect for the individual. When considering a highly contentious label that has no objective determination, the person's interest should have the highest priority to respect their personal political (or whatever) beliefs. It's not ignoring the "real world" just that we're taking a neutral, clinical tone in setting up the article before addressing the criticism of the person that is prevalent in sources. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But then we're back to my sort of original question. There is always a point at which BLP yields to strong sourcing, no? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no amount of sourcing that should cause the popular opinion of a person to override the claims made by that person when it comes to subjective labels when leading off the article. They should be documented but should absolutely not be one of the first things a reader sees about the BLP. I would even argue further that the lede sentence or two of any BLP should contain no contentious, subjective labels regardless of how uniform the media uses the terms, because that affects the tone of the article in a negative light before establishing non-contentious facts. Once you have set facts in place, then its a free-for-all to describe the BLP with the attributions made by the press at large within the lede (as would be appropriate here for Taylor). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe lookup the definition and explain to me how it is a subjective term. — Strongjam (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The term may have a definition, but to assess a person as ascribing to it or having beliefs that fall within it is highly subjective. There is no authority to say who is or isn't a "white supremacist". There are very few absolutes when it comes to describing social labels. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. According to wikipedia the definition of white supremacy is:

a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people.

I haven't seen in any of Taylor's writings or interviews the suggestion that whites should "rule" over non-whites in any way. If such sources exist, please present them. He openly advocates white separatism (a label I wouldn't object to) but I don't see him advocating white supremacy despite being labeled as a white supremacist in sources.

Either white supremacy is an ideology with an objective definition and we have no sources to support his meeting that definition (which suggest he's not a white supremacist and it shouldn't be in the lede) - or it's a subjective label and sources describing him as a white supremacist should be followed simply because they assign that label (in which case it should be excluded from the lede because it's subjective.) Either way it shouldn't be there, at least unattributed. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, there is reasonable attribution to those claiming he is a white supremacist. A statement in the lede "His views are widely considered by journalists and academics as racist and fall within white supremacy.", to me, is an acceptable, attributed statement given the numerous sources in the body that are used in the Views section. This itself is not the contentious fact (that he is considered by press/academics in this way).

What is not' acceptable is leading off with that statement before describing non-controversial, basic facts in a neutral voice in the few couple of sentences of the lede, which is the situation I started this thread with. Nor should his own counter-point to those claims be ignored just because he's not the mainstream view. BLP requires us to treat subjects neutrally and with respect, not with how the press wants us to treat them. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely. Again, I think a lede such as

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist as well as falling within white supremacy by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

would hit all bases as it establishes as neutrally as possible in the first sentence of the lede his notability (promoting white nationalism = white nationalist, which is probably one of the most common labels for the subject) and also describes his own ideology by using his own words. Then some basic, factual statements listing the organizations he's associated with before concluding with what he has been often called by other people. Zaostao (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also agree completely. There's no question he's seen as a white supremacist so the article must include that. Your proposed lede resolves all of my BLP objections - big improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Better would be to describe his work in his own terms, then to state that others call it something else. Editors need to be careful not to describe that "something else" in a loaded, contentious manner. There has been discussion above about "contentious", possibly by people who have not looked at WP:LABEL, which is pretty specific about that word. WP:LABEL is a section of the Manual of Style that urges editors to be very careful when using words such as "racist", "bigot" and others. IMHO, words like "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are from the same family as all the contentious labels that are enumerated in the MOS. Lou Sander (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree Lou Sander, but let's not forget that WP:LABEL advises that such words ". . . are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The proscription is neither absolute nor without nuance. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting that advice. But even the Views section, which isn't overtly objectionable, doesn't bother with in-text attribution. If it did, it would say, for each cited accusation of white supremecism, for example, "Mr. X, of publication Y, says this fellow espouses white supremecism", followed by a reference to where he says it. Instead, it just lists a bunch of generic sources, and "others", followed by a list of references. I don't see any "others" in the list of references. A good article wouldn't be so cavalier about its use of contentious material. Lou Sander (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There's certainly room for improvement. No argument there! Dumuzid (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: The problem with this article is its injudicious use of contentious labels, as described in WP:LABEL. Starting with the Views section, and continuing into the introduction, Taylor is repeatedly labeled as a racist, a white nationalist, and a white supremacist. Except for parts of the Reception section, these words are not supported by the in-text attribution that editors are strongly encouraged to use with contentious language. Not only is the in-text attribution usually missing, but the contentious terms are said to be used "often", when "sometimes" might be better and more judicious, and by "others" when no other citations or in-text attribution are provided. The effect of the present situation seems to be one of unencyclopedic name-calling from an anti-Taylor point of view.

I believe the article would be fixed by paying very careful attention to in-text attribution in the body, and by putting the legitimate criticisms into the latter part of the introduction. After the body of the article has been cleaned up, the lead could read:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and editor best known for his support of what he describes as "race realism". He is the founder and editor of the American Renaissance magazine, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and those of the organizations mentioned above, have been described as white supremacist and white nationalist by civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US. Taylor has strongly objected to those descriptions.

The last paragraph of the proposed lead needs to accurately and precisely reflect what is said in the cleaned-up body of the article. Provided that the clean-up is carefully done, the article and the summary will say what needs to be said, without appearing to be especially pro- or anti-Taylor. Lou Sander (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• If someone's views "have been described as white supremacist and white nationalist by civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US" (strong majority view), then he should be described as a "white nationalist and supremacist writer" in the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that runs counter to WP:BLP, although maybe you think Jared Taylor is the same as Vladimir Putin and "does not deserve a decent BLP page"? Zaostao (talk)

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but the point for me is that when reliable sources overwhelmingly report something, WP:BLP is no longer an issue. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of the subject is mentioned in the lede quite clearly and no one is arguing against its inclusion, the BLPvio is labeling a living person with a contentious label based on what sources (no matter how many or how reliable) state without first neutrally introducing the subject. Above you said you were okay with the lede I proposed, but thought mentioning American Renaissance without listing its views was a great disservice to the article, so how about we describe American Renaissance's views? Zaostao (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a self-described "race-realist, white advocacy organization". He is also the president of the New Century Foundation, as well as a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

If you have any specific objections to this lede, please state them. Cheers. Zaostao (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to your suggest because it downplays the man's racism, white supremacism and white nationalism. It incorrectly lends credence to the pseudoscience of "race realism". It gives the magazine its own platform for self-definition rather than telling the reader about the extremely negative assessment by scholars. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there will be objections. It is hardly NPOV to lead with a 'self-described' perspective in an instance of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a very valid point, and I would agree with removing the self-described part of the description of AR, just calling it out as a "political webzine" or something that neutrally explains what the work is. Later, the self-description can be pitted against the third-party views. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In this scholarly source, Taylor is classified as a white supremacist. Same with this scholarly source, and also this one. Other scholarly sources classify him as a white nationalist.[1][2] These labels are supported by very high quality sources, satisfying our BLP concerns. Taylor's denial of these labels is only worth a brief mention. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading the language not only at the linked points but other sections before and after, none of those source are attempting to present the subjects they are writing in a neutral light - they are POV-ladened works. (Just because they are by academics does not meant they are free of bias). It's clear Taylor is considered by a large number of writers as this, but it would be completely improper per BLP and per NPOV to take their stance as "word of god" as some are asking here. Neutrality and impartiality are key policy points here, and that's why we shouldn't be leading off with labeling that is controversial and contentious and libelous even if a majority of sources make this claim for a BLP. This is a core part of being a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a faulty understanding of requirements for neutrality & NPOV in this context. The most important issue here is following high quality sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Nomoskedasticity here; NPOV does not mean "even though Jared Taylor is referred to as a white nationalist and white supremacist by reliable secondary sources, we should remove those terms because they are not neutral." That's essentially the boiled-down argument being pushed by MASEM (and others before him); it's all a transparent effort to sanitize the lead of Taylor's page and make him seem more acceptable. For what purpose, I don't know; I mean, either you're into his white supremacy advocacy or you're not - changing the lead of his Wikipedia page isn't going to make a difference either way. I continue to affirm that the lead is fine as is - factual, sourced, and neutral. Rockypedia (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is an issue with tone: if you lead off with implying he is a white supremacist (even with attribution to sources), you've tainted the article's tone since most everyone would agree that white supremacy is a negative. It's like starting Bill Cosby's article with him being an accused sexual criminal. It's true that he's accused and it is a fact/claim that must be included somewhere as it is a significant factor of his live, but now you've tainted the article. Taylor's lede has to mention the stance the press claim he is on white supremacy and other issues, no question (there's no attempt being asked to scrub that completely) but it absolutely should not start off the article and impact the tone. But in the same manner, we should also avoid elevating his views either. The first one or two sentence should start with non-controversial facts (who is he, what he writes for, what organizations he is a part of), and then the lede can dig into the controversy over the views. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no tone. There is only how the subject is described by reliable sources, and what he's notable for. He's notable for promoting white supremacist and white nationalist views. I personally think the lead already leans very far towards your POV by not including "white supremacist" as a direct description of Taylor, being that that's how he's described by various sources. You said at the start that you're "looking to get additional opinions on this" - you've gotten them, but you refuse to accept that your view of Taylor is not the one most reliable sources see. How many opinions do you need? You continue to belabor the same incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy in spite of many people pointing out why you're wrong. It's not productive anymore. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

At WP:TONE we are instructed to follow the wording style used by reliable sources. You'll note in my links that our reliable sources state plainly that Taylor is a racist, a white supremacist and a white nationalist. Thus your complaint about "tone" falls flat. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the tone as described at WP:IMPARTIAL, not the tone of reading level as that essay describes. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That guideline talks about a "heated dispute" which I'm not seeing. All the best sources say that Taylor is a white supremacist/racist/nationalist. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of libel in American law is "defamatory falsehood." There is nothing false about describing an admitted white nationalist and white supremacist as either or both of those two things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I too think this definition of "neutrality" is incorrect. To quote WP:NPOV, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Neutrality does not mean "we take statements made by the subject of an article at face value." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is The New York Times describing Taylor explicitly as a white supremacist in the lede of an article about Donald Trump and white supremacy: Until recently, Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, had never supported a presidential candidate. [3] If this be libel, let Jared Taylor sue the NYT first and prove his case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP overrides any "majority view" from the press. Per BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (emphasis mine). Regardless of his denial or lack thereof, starting off an article on a BLP by calling the negative subjective labels is a violation of BLP, even if the bulk of reliable sources think it is true. Moreso, with his specific denial of these, that's more a driver to avoid leading off the article on these points. Just because other sources have made the claim does not mean we should approach it in the same way. We're an encyclopedia, not news articles. The other fact that NPOV is important is both WP:YESPOV (given that he has disputed the claims) and WP:IMPARTIAL (leading off an article with negative labels is not impartial in the first place). --MASEM (t) 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

When the first sentence of an article in The New York Times describes a person as a white supremacist, we are not "the primary vehicle" for spreading claims about that person. The subject's "privacy" is not at issue here, because they are a very public advocate for the positions they espouse. There is nothing "private" about Jared Taylor's white supremacist beliefs. He has voluntarily become "one of the country's most prominent white supremacists," in the words of one of the most respected journalistic publications on Earth. Claiming that calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "sensationalist" is simply ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, as long as Taylor has not self-identified or in this case, has actually countered the claim he is a white supremacist, that takes priority for us over any other newspaper sources, even the NYT. The press is not an authority on who and who isn't a white supremacist. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be the case on Masempedia, but here on Wikipedia, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So Masem, are you proposing that we remove Holocaust denier from the lede of David Irving? We declare him in the lede to be a Holocaust denier despite his vehement denials of that fact, up to and including filing a libel lawsuit over the term. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources declare Irving to be a Holocaust denier, so we call him one in that article. Your logic would demand that we remove it there. Is that your belief? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

To expand on this point, David Irving declares himself to be a historian. Are we required to put that word in the lede of his biography because he believes it and claims it, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources view his "scholarship" as entirely discredited and his "history" to be little more than Nazi propaganda and apologia? I believe we are not. Similarly, Jared Taylor is not the sole arbiter of what his viewpoints and political positions amount to in mainstream society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Irving, I would not include neither "Holocaust denier" or "historian" in the lede sentence, instead only noting him to be an author on military and political history of WWII. Then in the second sentence, we can mention that the English courts have determined him to be a "Holocaust denier" (an objective label), and that he instead claims to be a "historian", a claim countered by his critics. The same information, just changing the location to neutralize the tone. The point is not about removing well-sourced opinion for Taylor here, just located it to later in the lede to make a neutral tone. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The established consensus on that page disagrees with you. Your interpretation of BLP — that we are required to ignore how reliable sources describe people and only use self-applied descriptors — appears to be a novel one without support in prior precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

On that talk page, I see a lot of unresolved and continued debates over that line, and no conclusive end to the discussion, and the lede there remains a contentious point. Also, as there, here no one is arguing for removal of information. I want to simply have the labeling pushed down a sentence or two in the lede, so that the point is not ignored, but just not affecting the initial tone that the lede sentence presents. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus on this very page established that the material in question is not prohibited by BLP and there are no serious attempts to remove it. To quote Nick-D, This has been discussed lots of times in the past (including, from memory, in a formal RFC) and the consensus has been that 1) Irving is commonly described as a "Holocaust denier" in both academic/specialist works and the general media (there have been significant searches of references in the past) and 2) as a result, it's the appropriate term for Wikipedia to use to describe him. This topic gets raised about once a month or so, with the consensus on the talk page consistently being that the description remains appropriate. WP:BLP doesn't mean that we shouldn't describe people in a negative way if that's how they're commonly described.

I invite you to provide contrary precedent — an RFC, BLPN discussion or ArbCom decision which interprets BLP to mean that we use only self-descriptions of a person in the lede of their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives on Irving's talk page and do not see any type of formal RFC with a proper close, as Nick-D thinks there might have been. (There's one in May 2016 but that was after the previous link, and that was short-circuited closed as no consensus). Meaning that I think there needs to be an at-large RFC on such assertions in the first sentences of ledes for these types of articles.

And as for precedent, the development of MOS:GENDERID is the prime example of letting self-identification override sources. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think self-identification should override all sources in describing a person's ideology, beliefs, occupation, etc. I would invite you to open an RFC which would establish that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparing Holocaust denial to gender identity is ridiculous on so many levels. One's gender is not something that can be evaluated by peers, unlike academic writings... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:BLPCAT requires self-identification to place a LP in a contentious category, which should implicitely carry to the prose. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because categories and infoboxes do not allow for context to be added. Unlike in prose. Try reading the very first sentence of the the stuff your quoting. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the policy, because that's not what it says — it says caution should be used with categories that have negative connotations, but it does not prohibit such categorization. Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Nobody "self-identifies" as a criminal, but that category certainly exists and is full of living people who are criminals. We have a Category:White supremacists and it is full of living people who are white supremacists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, to quote WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Do you consider white supremacism to be Mr. Taylor's religion or sexual orientation? Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, your position also strikes me as a misuse of a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thus, it seems to me that primary sources may be used to establish that Mr. Taylor says he is not a 'white supremacist,' but it would violate the policy to use that primary source to say that he actually isn't a "white supremacist," that's the sort of conclusion for which a secondary source is really necessary. But I'm wrong plenty, as I like to say. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor's rebuttal is from third-party, secondary sources, not a primary one, as referenced in the Views section. Yes, there is concern if it was a SELFPUB issue, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, SELFPUB and PRIMARY are certainly related, but they are not identical. A quote from Mr. Taylor, even though it appears in the Wall Street Journal or on BBC News, is still a primary source, as is an interview with him. Please see WP:PRIMARY, where I find footnote 3 helpful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

However, BLP heavily realizes on verifiable self-identification over anything else (frequently repeated in WT:BLP and on these pages). That's implicit in the language and why we have a BLP policy in the first place, as well as what should be common sense for neutrality and impartialness in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, you're going to have to show me something that backs that up. As far as I can tell, you're talking about Masempedia. Again, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." You'd think self-identification would get a mention if it had the importance you claim. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to return back to a key point as the whole self-identification side is a whole red herring here, because no one is asking for self-ID to erase negative criticism here. In the case of the Taylor, for the lede to not mention that he is considered a white supremacist by the media at large (despite his self-non-identification) would be failing UNDUE of reliable sources. There is zero issue with this type of statement in the lede. The point again is to avoid placing the contentious subjective label in the first sentence of the article per MOS:BLPLEAD. We have to get to this issue of white supremacy for Taylor sooner than later, but the first sentence should not be that place, but instead should stay neutral. Once you have that out of the way, then its fair game to say he's considered by the multiple negative labels by the press at large. That's it, that's all that's at issue here is the ordering to be more impartial without changing what content is there. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that's perfectly fair, but per WP:BLPLEAD, we should include why the person is notable. Would you concede that for a person who is notable mainly for white supremacism, that belongs in the first paragraph or perhaps even the first sentence? Even if you would dispute that is the situation here, such a case might exist, no? Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a category error to state that it is somehow "neutral" to specifically avoid identifying a well-known white supremacist as such in the lede. It is, in fact, the opposite of neutral. To quote the Neutral Point of View policy, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It is without question that the overwhelmingly most-significant view of reliable sources about Jared Taylor is that he is a white supremacist. Thus, NPOV policy requires that we identify him as such immediately — his advocacy for white supremacy is the only reason reliable sources have paid any attention to him at all. To avoid using those words privileges Taylor's viewpoint and gives his tiny-minority view disproportionate prominence over the overwhelming majority viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor is already described as a white supremacist by multiple reliable sources. I propose we add "white supremacist" to the description of him in the first part of the first sentence; that way Masem's concerns with AmRen carrying the same phrase should be alleviated. Rockypedia (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The skewed views advocated here and elsewhere by Masem makes me wonder why people bother responding. He keeps trying to wiki-lawyer his desired non-neutral viewpoint into the encyclopedia, hoping that the victims get blamed for Gamergate, David Irving the Holocaust denier is validated as a legitimate historian, and the racist Jared Taylor is presented as righteous. I don't think discussion such as this is a good use of the community's time and energy. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• No personal attacks please, especially when you start off by saying it's a waste of time responding to the person you're attacking. Masem has not made any edits to Jared Taylor that I'm aware of. Zaostao (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, NorthBySouthBaranof and some others. The subject should be more definitely described as a supremacist writer in intro. This is per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL Lou Sander (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:LABEL, certain wordings should be "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is the case here. Also, this is not a label, but description. For example, word "myth" could be avoided when used in its informal sense, but it must be used for an actual myth. Same is here. There is such thing as white supremacist writer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a white supremacist writer, but they don't say things such as "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Also, I feel my above question to you that you didn't answer is very pertinent here, is Jared Taylor the same in your mind as Vladimir Putin and "does not deserve a decent BLP page"? Zaostao (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that he is an Asian supremacist? As about your second question, you asked it already on various pages for the fourth time. Well, I am happy that you like my joke. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• A joke pertaining to knowingly violating a specific and inviolable wikipedia policy that is also the same policy that this discussion is about? Maybe all other statements you're making in this BLP discussion are a joke? You seem very dedicated to this Putler "joke" in any case. [4][5] Zaostao (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As the definition of 'supremacist' goes, he certainly holds views that deserve that label. The difference is he denies explicitly a supremacist label to himself, and unrelated reliable sources concentrate on the 'white supremacist' aspect. So its not something you could source easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against the inclusions of those descriptions, the discussion is about putting them in their correct place to respect BLP and NPOV.

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race realism". He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

This lede includes mentions of white nationalism, racism and white supremacy, as well as what the subject describes their own ideology as. The rest is simple, factual statements. If you have any specific objections, please list them. Zaostao (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach

Someone has put an erroneous link on this bio page for Burt Bacharach in the 'References Section'. For some reason someone has put a link here to my website, which is a real estate appraisal website, and has absolutely nothing to do with Burt Bacharach. You'll see the link to which I'm referring in the references section under #20:

20. Real Estate Appraisers Brookville, NY - Home Appraisal Brookville Retrieved 2014-09-05.

Please remove this link pointing at my website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.134.31.123 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the archived version of that website from September 2014. It can be seen here. Somebody probably added the link to give credence to the (false?) claim that Bacharach lives in that neighbourhood, hoping that nobody would ever click the link to confirm. I've deleted the link as well as the sentence stating that he lives there. Thanks for letting us know. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Brookville, New York

Someone has put an erroneous link on this page for Brookville, NY in the 'References Section'. For some reason someone has put a link here to my website, which is a real estate appraisal website, as a reference source for a notable person from Brookville - Burt Bacharach. My site has nothing to do with Burt Bacharach. You'll see the link to which I'm referring in the references section under #11:

11. Real Estate Appraisers Brookville, NY - Home Appraisal Brookville Retrieved 2014-09-05.

Please remove this link pointing at my website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.134.31.123 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed you've filed this second report. I have deleted that one also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen

Seventeen (magazine) in their "Real Girl Stories" section published on 3 August 2015: http://www.seventeen.com/life/real-girl-stories/news/a32859/savvy-8th-grader-exposed-a-professors-myth-with-one-simple-google-search/ .

This is being used for a claim in a BLP:

Nevertheless, her paper was considered sufficiently worthy to be published in the Oxford Journal of Social History,[31] the same periodical that initially published Jensen's paper.

The opinion "nevertheless" is not found at all source. The magazine does say "the same journal that had originally published Jensen's mistaken theory." Use of that as a statement of fact is iffy at best, and the Seventeen article is not a reliable source for that claim. In fact, Seventeen is a magazine aimed at providing inspiring stories to teenagers, and is not a reliable source for any claims of fact about the Jenkins thesis at all. The Fried article has, in fact, been changed as of 6/20/2016.

Earnest eyes are requested to ensure that opinions be ascribed as opinions, that "nevertheless" is a piece of original research not found in the scholarly source (Seventeen magazine?) cited at all, and that the wording is not conformant with WP:NPOV. Also that the BLP conveniently manages to say nothing about any rebuttals of Fried's thesis. Collect (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prior discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive229#Richard_J._Jensen and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive240#Richard_J_Jensen_under_attack Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the issue that you doubt that the paper(s) were published by OJSH? Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No - the issues are the use of "nevertheless" , the snarky bit about "sufficiently worthy", and the connection that it was published in the same journal that originally published Jensen's paper. In addition, fairness would seem to indicate that we also cover Jensen's reply to the assertion that he faked his data. I note, moreover, that most historians now attribute the NINA claims primarily to the UK, and not to US usage. Fried's position, is thus also flawed. Collect (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove those three words? We could augment the seventeen article as a source with the abstracts available from OJSH. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In short -

Fried had an article published on the OJSH which suggested errors in Jensen's data regarding NINA. Jensen responded with an article on History News Network

(I think the actual article was printed in Smithsonian mag due to the header on that web page possibly). Collect (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160234 appears to be of salient interest here, and so far appears unused. I suggest that it be used in the BLP as expository of Jensen's research. Collect (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pooja Hegde

Multiple instances of addition of defamatory content on Pooja Hegde page by User:Jitumoni1995

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736123082&oldid=736028105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736124436&oldid=736123082
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736249557&oldid=736246990
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736252056&oldid=736249557
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736255741&oldid=736252056
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736256765&oldid=736255741
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=738536420&oldid=738340817

and on Vijay Eswaran's page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734645192
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734647078
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734648749
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734773109
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=738240668

and on Michael Ferreira's page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ferreira&diff=734134152&oldid=733823696 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

These don't look particularly defamatory. They all seem to be rather dry and also supported by sources.--Auric talk 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". See this revert of Jitumoni1995. The sources are youtube, twitter and facebook links which are unreliable sources as per WP:RS. The moneylife.in articles repeat the accusations by a single person without presenting the side of the defendant or the investigating authority. Basically Jitumoni1995 is running a slander campaign against Pooja Hegde, Vijay Eswaran and Michael Ferreira using the services of wikipedia. I hope the admins look into it. Thanks KhaasBanda (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Auric: User:Jitumoni1995 has again filled the Pooja Hedge bio page with insinuations using twitter and facebook links as sources seen here and here. Is any action gonna be taken for such vandalism of a biography of a living person or will the edits remain? KhaasBanda (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Pulled the edits out and left a further warning. Tabercil (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits but User:Jitumoni1995 has moved on to the Michael Ferreira bio page and started reinserting the slanderous content.KhaasBanda (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC with possible BLP implications

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Could we please have an early close to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#RFC: Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article? there is a discussion about an RfC that may be of interest to the BLPNB. There is a two to one consensus in the responses, yet the side that is in the minority insists[6][7] that after thirty days the closing admin will override the` majority on BLP grounds. I am asking for an uninvolved administrator make a ruling one way or the other on the BLP question and close the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Beryl Crockford

Article in question: Beryl Crockford

It's apparent that the subject, Crockford, may have passed away. This is according to those who know the individual (refer to User_talk:MelbourneStar#Beryl_Crockford and User_talk:MelbourneStar#Beryl_Crockford_2). I have erred on adding this information, on the basis that we do not have published reliable sources confirming this incident – and WP:BLPREMOVE is quite clear in immediately removing such content provided it's unsourced. Would we be able to waive WP:BLP and note Crockford's passing, and of course wait for published RS to document this?

Thoughts much appreciated! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the category Living people to Possibly living people.--Auric talk 13:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Pendergrast

Mark Pendergrast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi -- I am new to trying to edit or communicate at Wikipedia. I am Mark Pendergrast, an author about whom there is a Wikipedia entry. It is somewhat out of date, since I have published other books since INSIDE THE OUTBREAKS came out in 2010. You can look at my website, www.markpendergrast.com, to pick up new info. Could someone do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpendergrast (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yury Mukhin (author)

Yury Mukhin (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yury Mukhin (author) was recently titled Yury Mukhin (conspiracy theorist), until I moved the page, concerned that the title label is a BLP violation, per my concerns raised at Talk:Yury Mukhin (author). A second user suggests "political activist" as an appropriate label, which seems fine to me, while a third user would like the "conspiracy theorist" label to return to the title.

Advice would be appreciated. Mukhin has a series of IMHO execrable or strange beliefs, and is on the fringe of Russian nationalist political beliefs. Nevertheless I believe that readers pick all that up from the article, and that "conspiracy theorist" is a clearly pejorative label for his title. Nobody but the POV warriors benefit from beating readers over the head with our judgement, even if the judgement is likely justified. -Darouet (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)