Talk:Richard B. Spencer

RfC: Neo-Nazi label

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, [1][2][3]). 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 [4], 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)

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)

References

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)

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)