Talk:National Policy Institute

This seems a poor page

While descriptive excerpts from a relevant speech and self-desciptive liturature are both proper and useful, I hardly think it should stand as the bulk of an entry, especially for an actively lobbying, political interest group. Self-description is frowned upon by Wikipedia, is it not? Neither organizations nor individuals are encouraged to create or alter their own entries. So it stands to reason that self-describing speech should not be excerpted as the primary decription of a given entry. I believe this was done as a way of creating the text out of only verifiable facts, in order to stave-off partisan bickering over a potentially politically charged entry, but it still amounts to laziness. That bickering (more properly, "discussion") is part and parcel of the Wikipedia process and any effort to get around that inevitably results in subverting the democratic intent. I would suggest that interested editors write their own copy and use the relevant speech(es) and literature as supporting references, rather than as the body of the entry. 24.21.86.142 09:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Think tank?

A think tank with no physical address or even any evidence of actual staff other than Spencer himself, just a PO Box? Exactly how is this organization notable? ADL and SPLC blogging about it a couple times isn't sufficient justification. Laval (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Paleoconservative?

Why is this described as a "paleoconservative" think tank? It is clearly white nationalist in ideology. Paleoconservatives concern themselves with culture (ideas) such as Christian and Western values. White nationalists concern themselves with ethnic dominance and skin color. This seems to be the latter.

I tried to change this to reflect that fact a few days ago, but quickly had my edit reverted, and was reprimanded for "vandalizing" the article. Why? Richard Spencer is a well-known white nationalist figure, and the think tank is clearly concerned with skin color, as opposed to cultural values.

I agree. Some information from reliable sources needs to be added that demonstrate the ideology a bit more precisely, as I would agree that this does not demonstrate what most people would call paleoconservatism.

Anymouse (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

The edit-warring over referring to the SPLC as "anti-white hate group" needs to stop. There is clearly no consensus for its inclusion at this point, and no one supporting its inclusion has bothered to advance an argument for it outside of an edit summary. So: why is a fringe publication's claim about the SPLC worthy of inclusion? Dyrnych (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's position

Re [1] this weaseling, it doesn't belong in the article. If you really want to put something in about Trump's position in there this is probably better.

And spare me the angry/personal attack edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

An update

Some good info in this new NYt article, to incorporate into the article at some point:

NYT: "Civil rights groups called on President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday to publicly condemn extremist movements that are espousing racism in his name after hundreds of white nationalist sympathizers spent the weekend in Washington debating ways to preserve white culture. ... The conference, held at a federal building named after Ronald Reagan, drew about 275 attendees from around the country and attracted droves of “anti-fascist” protesters. Speakers preached the virtues of a white 'ethno-state,' railed against Jews and lauded Mr. Trump’s election as a victory with Nazi salutes....On Monday, Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said the president-elect disapproved of all hate groups."

--Neutrality^talk 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A small correct

Move the dot

"intellectual vanguard." change to "intellectual vanguard".

I'd do it by myself, but the page is protected 130.255.137.87 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Having the period before the quote is correct by American grammatical standards. We should be following those since this article is about an organization in the United States. --206.188.26.36 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses logical quotation. See WP:LQ. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Name and ideology similar to German institution

Just saying, there is a German neo-rightist think-tank in Germany called Institut für Staatspolitik, which could be translated quite precisely as 'Institute of National/State Politics/Policies', founded in 2000 by Götz Kubitschek, a key figure of the German New Right, who appeared during the recent anti-Islamist PEGIDA protests and who edits 'Sezession', probably the most important German-language neo-rightist journal. I don't see that either the Institut für Staatspolitik or Kubitschek has an English wikipedia page but I wanted to point out the parallel, in case somebody would be willing to work on this. --94.223.184.95 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

This organization should be characterized as a racist white supremacist group. The term "alt-right" was coined by the leader of the National Policy Institute. The term has no basis in history or political science. 2607:FEA8:4D1F:F328:BC:203D:5120:EB1E (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

White supremacist?

That label is in the very lead paragraph. But after watching the entire November NPI conference online I couldn't find "supremacism" in the sense that whites should rule over non-whites.

Cesar Tort 17:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably because of your viewpoint. To quote your user page, "Alas, when non-liberal whites do what every other group on the planet is not only allowed to do but actively encouraged to do—advocate for its interests—it is called "supremacism" and "hate". This hypocrisy and absurdity is staggering.

"In what deranged liberals call a "white supremacist" world, whites in fact are being denied freedom of speech and association. Pro-whites who go public are fired in the US or jailed in Europe.

"Regarding this encyclopaedia's policy of "reliable sources", it has become a customary procedure for the System to relegate free thinkers and would-be heretics and their literary or scientific achievements to marginal outlets, such as self-publishing, that are very similar to those used by dissidents in the ex-Soviet Union.

"Finally, when years ago I edited articles in Wikipedia I was unaware that the current zeitgeist was destroying our civilisation and the Aryan race through mass immigration into the West. So I moved on, outside the wiki.[2] Hopefully, the system will start to crack with the presidency of Donald Trump."

Doug Weller talk 18:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What I say in my user page is irrelevant. Focus on the editing, not on the editor is WP policy. This is Jared Taylor, one of the speakers of the recent NPI conference:

When the Alt Right dissents from racial orthodoxy, it can count on being called names. The liberals’ favorite is “white supremacist,” which is the most emotionally charged way to try to discredit a white person. “White supremacy” implies nostalgia for slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings, and suggests we want to rule over people of other races. This is foolishness. I have never met anyone who wants to rule other races. We want to be left alone so we can be the people we were meant to be. The expression “white supremacist” should be dropped from current use, but the more it is used the more ridiculous it sounds. (Source)

Cesar Tort 18:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you understand that we don't rely on a group's self-serving descriptions of itself for whether or not it is a white supremacist organization. Dyrnych (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that you shouldn't put something in the lead which has only been asserted by secondary sources but denied by the group itself. Trying to condemn other users based on their user pages is bad form, plain and simple, and makes me a lot less inclined to take your point of view charitably. (But I'll try nonetheless.) There is already a prominent 'views' section which describes the details and sources of the claims, so there is no need for it to be in the lead. Describing it as alt-right and white nationalist already provides the same information about its basic content and notability. K.Bog 21:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Organizations use spin to try and deny unflattering labels all the time. NPOV doesn't mean we just have to shrug and take their word for it. That's not a practical standard. Not even close. The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. It should not be used for watered-down PR purposes. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Organizations are also mislabeled sometimes. Surely the views which an organization ascribes to itself are sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead - if you want to keep the phrase white supremacist, then attribute it accordingly and also include some statements about what the organization says that it really believes. And if I look at the leads of other think tanks' articles on Wikipedia, they don't have their point of view stated five different ways in two sentences, yet they communicate their point just fine. It's just excessive and sloppy writing. Again, the accusation that I'm arguing in bad faith, as if anyone disagreeing with you is doing watered-down PR, is totally disingenuous.K.Bog 00:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say this is a white supremacist organization. Many, many sources agree on this, and equivocating would be WP:FRINGE. Some in the NPI may not like their organization being described that way, but we're not going to advocate for this organization based on quotes pulled from actual press releases, especially if they aren't actually talking about the NPI. If you can find a specific source where someone from within the group claims that the NPI is not white supremacist, then it could be considered as an addition to the lead, but not it doesn't supersede reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I already found a specific source. Taylor was speaking in an official capacity for the group and talked about his history of knowing the alt right. He was actually speaking with Spencer (director of the NPI) right beside him, giving him an introduction, and describing him as the man who "red-pilled me about race" (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-alt-right-gives-a-press-conference.html). For an article this short about a newly formed group without many documented statements, it's clearly notable enough for inclusion. I don't see how anyone could reasonably deny that, and I already pared down the quote to be much smaller than the attention given to competing views, so I'm restoring it to the article, and it seems like you are the one who should gather consensus before engaging in an edit war. Re: the lead - again, if you look at the leads of other think tanks' articles on Wikipedia, they don't have their point of view stated five different ways in two sentences, yet they communicate their point just fine. It's just excessive and sloppy writing. And WP:FRINGE regards how we treat claims about the supposed truthfulness of fringe theories - it doesn't tell us how to refer to the basic content of their beliefs. K.Bog 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD doesn't work that way, and you are now over WP:3RR. The burden is on you to establish consensus for changes you want to see made. AmRen isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, and Taylor's press release doesn't directly mention NPI's stance on supremacism, making this cherry-picking.

The NY Mag source says nothing at all about NPI distancing themselves from the "supremacist" label. Taylor is part of the walled garden, we already knew that. Combining sources to make a point not made by either is WP:SYNTH. Find a source where someone in the NPI specifically says that the NPI is not supremacist so we can discuss if it should be included or not. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and notability isn't a license to pad-out an article with a self-published bloviating digression out of false balance. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

All due respect, but I don't think either of us has been following WP:BRD (I admit I had not read that policy before). Also, I have made 3 reverts, as have you. Moreover, there is no relevant sense in which there is a 'burden' for consensus - WP:CONSENSUS does not mention the term. Articles should include or exclude whichever information is most supported by the consensus, not privilege one view or the other on the basis of who edited first or anything like that. The NY Mag says that Spencer, the current director of the NPI, hosted an official conference on behalf of the NPI where he introduced Taylor (former director of the NPI) as a speaker while endorsing his views. I think it's pretty clear that if Taylor said (in that very speech) that neither he nor the alt-right people he had met in the past are white supremacists, then that counts as a notable opinion, especially since it was made as a clear response to the points of view which are included multiple times in both the lead and body of this article. We can nitpick all day over whether Taylor's statement does or doesn't count as the official views of the NPI, but it's at least clear that it's a notable statement for an article about the NPI itself, where the idea of it being white supremacist is at the center of its controversy and a part of its notability. And, for the love of Wikipedia, a direct quote from someone who is summarizing their views is not cherrypicking. K.Bog 02:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a contentious addition. Until an addition STOPS being contentious, it stays out: that's the way things are done on Wikipedia. So I've removed it until there's some sort of agreement on its inclusion and in what form. And, for convenience, here's the edit, again:

Regarding criticisms of white supremacy, former director Jared Taylor stated at a conference held by the NPI:

“White supremacy” implies nostalgia for slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings, and suggests we want to rule over people of other races. This is foolishness. I have never met anyone who wants to rule other races. We want to be left alone so we can be the people we were meant to be.

-- 03:26, December 6, 2016‎ Calton (talk · contribs)

It should not go in the article, as it is WP:UNDUE and yes, since it's contentious it requires firm consensus for inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? A whole article is echoing all kinds of views making claims about an organization. And one quote from somebody central to the organization explaining what they believe is 'undue'??? Note that since Taylor and Spencer are both living persons, this falls under WP:BLP, to whit: "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. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." K.Bog 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote is neither from a reliable source, nor specifically explains the position of the NPI. Jared Taylor has his own article, and his own status as a white supremacist has been debated on that talk page, as well. There again, sources strongly dispute his claims to not be a racist/supremacist/whatever. That article says this: He has also said he is not a white supremacist, describing himself as a "white advocate"... This is far more succinct and neutral than the quote you've added as the last word in the article. The line is Taylor's opinion of himself, which is the only thing he's actually reliable for by Wikipedia's standards. So why the much longer and more accommodating quote? Why would we using such an unreliable and clearly non-neutral figure to suggest that the NPI isn't supremacist, when the source itself doesn't actually say that?

There's the added problem that Taylor has chosen to define white supremacy in a very limited, emotionally loaded way to support his claims. He says what it "implies" some things and then says that they don't want one of the things that (according to him) is implied. That's either sloppy logic or flat manipulation, because he isn't actually saying that they are not white supremacists. If we're going to be quoting him saying something so distorted, we should use independent sources to contextualize it, otherwise neutrality isn't being served at all. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"The quote is neither from a reliable source" - seriously, it's a quote published by the author himself. I don't know how more reliable something can be. Are you doubting that Taylor said the things he is saying? "nor specifically explains the position of the NPI." It strongly implies the position of the NPI, and even if it doesn't explicitly state it, it's notable nonetheless, as I described above. "Jared Taylor has his own article, and his own status as a white supremacist has been debated on that talk page, as well." All the better. If it's notable enough for inclusion there, it's notable for inclusion here. Note also that American Renaissance (magazine) and New Century Foundation state the organizations' opposing views. This article here looks to be extremely anomalous. Do you think that if you went to those three articles and tried to get them to remove material about them stating their own views, that it would be allowed? "This is far more succinct and neutral" - neither is more or less neutral than the other, as they are quotes of his explicit points of view. Yes, your quote is more succinct, but in an article like this, only including such a short statement would violate WP:UNDUE. "the quote you've added as the last word in the article" - first I couldn't add things to the lead, now I can't add things to the end, what am I supposed to do? Must it go in the middle, and if so, why? "The line is Taylor's opinion of himself, which is the only thing he's actually reliable for by Wikipedia's standards." No, he's also reliable for descriptive accounts of similar people and organizations who he has worked with and is aligned with. Adolf Hitler even counts as a reliable source for the Nazi Party article, for goodness' sake! Do you still think you are being reasonable? "So why the much longer and more accommodating quote?" Because it provides a complete view of the goals of him and the NPI which is likely to be of interest to readers of the article. Think about it honestly - if you were a new reader curious about what the NPI says and believes, you would find the quote to be of interest. "Why would we using such an unreliable and clearly non-neutral figure to suggest that the NPI isn't supremacist, when the source itself doesn't actually say that?" The source itself does say that. Taylor is referring to the people he has met. Presumably, he met people at the NPI while working there as a director. If they were white supremacists, he would have met them. It doesn't take WP:OR to figure that out. "Taylor has chosen to define white supremacy in a very limited, emotionally loaded way to support his claims" Perhaps, but since he gives the definition clearly in the quote, it's something that readers can perceive and understand for themselves. If there are disputes over the definition and connotation of the term, all the more reason to include nuance and detailed quotes. "he isn't actually saying that they are not white supremacists" - maybe or maybe not, but even so, it's still a notable comment for inclusion. "If we're going to be quoting him saying something so distorted, we should use independent sources to contextualize it, otherwise neutrality isn't being served at all" - sorry, again I have no idea why you need independent sources for this. He's explaining his views, not just on the surface level of ideological categories, but with specific reference to actual propositions and beliefs. That's as accurate and useful as it gets. K.Bog 04:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying "it's notable", but that's what's being challenged for multiple reasons. Neither AmRen as a website, nor Taylor as an individual has a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking required by WP:RS, so no, he is not a reliable source for anything controversial. That turns out to be pretty much everything he says. His opinions about what is and is not white supremacy are especially controversial, so we need independent sources to establish due weight. Wikipedia, by policy, guideline, and convention, favors WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Taylor says lots of junk. Not everything he says becomes notable just because it includes a related phrase.

Comparisons to the Nazis? Sure, okay. There are exactly 100 references in the Nazi Party article, only 3 of which are Hitler directly: one is a non-controversial German grammar issue, the other two are about a point which Hitler specifically clarified regarding the Nazi Party. That point, incidentally, is very widely discussed by other reliable sources, as well, which makes this as much about convenience as anything else. Context matters and if Hitler is being used, it's only with extreme caution. The article isn't peppered with softball quotes taken from Anton Drexler's speeches to the Thule Society as compiled and printed by the party itself, and that seems like a more accurate comparison.

If I were an unfamiliar reader, I would be irritated or worse that Taylor (who's role in the NPI is not explained or sourced at all) was being given such a large amount of space to spread his vague views on an issue that isn't even clearly related. It's hard to understand why he's being given a soapbox when he's not even talking about the NPI. Taylor's personal views are already explained at his article. Padding out this article with junk from what's basically his blog just to make the organization look slightly better is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. As I said, if you can find an unambiguous source explaining the NPI's position on being described as white supremacists, so be it. This source isn't even close to that. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"You keep saying "it's notable", but that's what's being challenged for multiple reasons" - on the contrary; you keep saying "it's not notable", but I've provided multiple reasons against it and countered all of your arguments; however, you just repeat the same lines over and over again without meaningfully responding to what I say. I will repeat this one more time: the source is reliable because it involves Taylor giving a comment about this beliefs of himself and NPI, and the quote itself is what we are using for the article. Yes, Wikipedia prefers secondary and independent sources, but they are not necessary. I've also responded to the charge of it being undue already. You're repeating yourself and not responding to the points I raise, which is objectionable behavior. "Not everything he says becomes notable just because it includes a related phrase" - seriously, he's talking about whether or not his group is about white supremacy, in an article which is 30% about how the group is white supremacist. It doesn't get much more notable than that.

"There are exactly 100 references in the Nazi Party article, only 3 of which are Hitler directly: one is a non-controversial German grammar issue, the other two are about a point which Hitler specifically clarified regarding the Nazi Party." I don't think the specific number of sources matters. Context matters, yes - the Nazi Party article is longer, and the subject has been more comprehensively covered by third-party sources. "The article isn't peppered with softball quotes taken from Anton Drexler's speeches to the Thule Society as compiled and printed by the party itself, and that seems like a more accurate comparison." Uh, what? We're adding a single quote. You're really overreacting.

"If I were an unfamiliar reader, I would be irritated or worse that Taylor (who's role in the NPI is not explained or sourced at all)" It is explained - I wrote that he's a former director. It was already in the article, so I figured it was already an accepted fact. We can add a source for it as well; I believe it was mentioned in the NY Mag article. "was being given such a large amount of space to spread his vague views on an issue that isn't even clearly related." Huh? Two lines quoted where he is summarizing his beliefs? How is that "such a large amount of space"? You're being completely unreasonable. Do you get irritated that the article of Ted Kaczynski, an actual terrorist, has quotes and direct explanations of his political views? Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored, regardless if you find the content objectionable or offensive. "Taylor's personal views are already explained at his article." Not really; mostly there are external categorizations of him/NPI being white supremacist, alt right, etc, but little in the way of specific beliefs, and those which are provided are plausibly instances of cherrypicking (whether on the part of editors or the sources provided).

"Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy" - sorry, but I'm not doing 'promotion' or 'advocacy' and find the accusation disturbing. You should remember to assume good faith and focus on making an informative article, instead of trying to shut down people attempting to add useful information to an article. "As I said, if you can find an unambiguous source explaining the NPI's position on being described as white supremacists, so be it" - the NPI is small and does not have an official statement of the sort. They held a clear press conference intending to communicate exactly their points of view, which is as good as it gets for this purpose. You keep insisting upon this requirement, but I can see no relevant policy or guideline which clearly states that it's necessary in this case. This content is a quote. Do you understand how quotes work? They're direct statements from the individuals in question. A published article on AmRen, while not necessarily reliable for a generic comment about an issue, is clearly reliable when used as a source for a quote from the author of the article itself. K.Bog 06:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, since we seem to be repeating ourselves and other editors here have not substantially commented, I have raised the issue on Third Opinions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=753285875&oldid=753247538) to try to get clarification before this comment chain winds on any longer. K.Bog 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As the third opinion page explains, it is for disputes between only two editors. There are already multiple other editors who have commented. The quote was first introduced to this talk page by another editor. It was too late for a third opinion before either of us even started this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's reasonable. K.Bog 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the quote to be notable it would have to be one which was somehow highlighted and discussed in secondary reliable sources. AFAICT, this isn't the case. So not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not heard of that rule and can't find it anywhere on WP:QUOTE. I think you are mistaken about this; if not please cite. K.Bog 07:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can User:Kbog help me out here? The quote doesn't mention the NPI at ALL. So how is it supposed to be any sort of defense/rebuttal regarding the NPI? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote was given by their former director at a conference they held, entitled "what is the alt-right?", where the current director introduced him and endorsed him before his speech. Note that I don't intend to include this as a "defense" or a "rebuttal" per se, I only maintain that it's information about the views of these people that improves the balance and information of the article. I agree that a direct statement from the NPI would be better if available, but a statement of some kind is important nonetheless, given the extensive coverage given to third-party descriptions of this organization's views in its article. K.Bog 15:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So in other words, no, it's not about the NPI. So no, it doesn't belong. The rules regarding synthesis are pretty clear: it's not up to you to do the work the subjects haven't. --Calton | Talk 16:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Even the NYT concedes that those guys of the recent NPI conference dislike the label:

Not many of the attendees at the Washington gathering favored the term “white supremacist.” The word implies a claim to superiority — something few insisted on. “White nationalist” is closer to the mark; most people in this part of the alt-right think whites either ought to have a nation or constitute one already. But they feel that almost all words tend to misdescribe or stigmatize them. Source

Cesar Tort 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, but it's still very weak. The comment is not about the organization, it's about how many of the attendees of one conference don't favor a term because of what it implies. That supports the idea, but it's heavily diluted, and it also suggests that some of them might actually favor that term after all. We have a large number of sources using "white supremacist", and we need some source explicitly saying this misrepresents them for Wikipedia to support that. This is an overtly white nationalist organization, and supremacist is not much of a stretch. Spencer might not be a grand-master of public relations, but surely he is capable of issuing a press release, or FAQ, or blog post, or something. An oblique comment from the guy who ran the group ten years previously about his understanding of the meaning of one particular phrase (even if it is an important one) is way, way too flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the context of the quote it is much more than just a comment. Also, Spencer took over 5 years ago. You rarely see statements anywhere specifically saying "no, we don't believe __." NPI actually appears to be a fairly inactive group overall, judging by the amount of statements and research. The reason it's important to include a quote is that the views section, as it stands now, is terrible. There is a long list of classifications and titles bestowed by third party organizations, but very little actual information on their specific ideas and points of view. There are no primary sources, and all the secondary sources are (understandably) biased. White supremacy is different from white nationalism, and it's not satisfactory to carelessly conflate different ideologies just because they're both fringe. The average reader coming across this is just going to be curious. What do these people care about? Do they want to return to segregation? Do they want concentration camps? What do they believe about the world? Those are legitimate questions which you would expect a 'views' section to explain. K.Bog 04:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Spencer may have taken over 5 years ago, but Taylor (or someone pretending to be him) posted on the talk page of his article in 2007 saying that he was no longer director. The details on this point should be filled by reliable sources, but the point remains that he isn't the official spokesperson for the organization, and hasn't been for a relatively long time.

The lack of primary sources is a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Taylor's misrepresentation of the meaning of white supremacy to suit an agenda almost universally rejected by reliable sources would only belong in the article if it was directly and unambiguously about the NPI, and even then it would be much, much better to include independent sources. I don't accept that this is a 'careless' conflation. Sources widely use the term for good reason. Sources do not agree that these ideologies are particularly different, either. White nationalism explains that supremacy is a subgroup of nationalism, meaning they are not mutually exclusive, and that supremacists avoid the term supremacy because of, well, it's pretty obvious, innit? Reliable sources are not obligated to indulge in the NPI's euphemisms, and Wikipedia should follow reliable sources. If you can find sources, independent or otherwise, which discuss the views of the NPI, that would be a place to start. This quote isn't satisfactory. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OK: This article, "The Alt-Right and White Supremacy", may not be a RS for WP standards, but it conveys why many racialist Americans are not "supremacists". More to the point, any cursory search on Spencer's Texas A&M Speech (see the YouTube videos of Spencer taking to the media) demonstrates he's not a supremacist, only a white nationalist. Cesar Tort 05:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not even close to a reliable source. The definition he's using for white supremacy is almost as dreadful as his opinion on what liberals think "equality" means. It's tempting to dissect that further (does he not think poor minorities also shop at Walmart?) but it's not productive to improving this article.

As for the Texas A&M thing, again, sources use headline such as: White Supremacist Richard Spencer: 'We reached tens of millions of people' with video or Students protest white supremacist at Texas A&M University or White Supremacist Richard Spencer to Speak at Texas A&M University or Protests interrupt white supremacist's speech at Texas A&M or Outrage as white supremacist scheduled to speak at Texas A&M. That's just a sample, and it's not including the dozens more that humor him by calling him a nationalist in the headline but describing him as supremacist in the body, or as promoting supremacist beliefs, or use the quote from the SPLC about being "a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old". If you want, point to a specific quote from him where he unambiguously discusses the NPI's stance on white supremacy. Trying to figure out from his own comments if he does or doesn't technically qualify as a white supremacist is original research. That's not going to work. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Spencer did say to a CNN reporter "I am not a white supremacist, no": first seconds of YouTube clip. What the lying press is CLAIMING is a lie (just what the lying press said about Trump). Cesar Tort 12:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't you mean the "lugenpresse"? I think any credibility you had just dissipated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Die Lügenpresse lügt" is not Wikipedia policy, and Spencer's self-serving statement is no more an appropriate source for a claim of fact than, say, Robert Mugabe's claim to be a democratically elected leader. Dyrnych (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. All that matters is what Wikipedia calls "Reliable Sources", that is the very Lügenpresse that said for more than a year that Steve Bannon was a white supremacist, even when there is no evidence he is. I am done here. This is exactly the sort of stuff that moved me to give up the wiki: Wikipedia it is part of the lying press. Bye! Cesar Tort 15:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. The article on Spencer does explain that he rejects the supremacist label. The article on Taylor does also. If a source can be found where someone in the NPI says the same regarding the NPI, or a reliable independent source says the same thing, that might be worth mentioning in the article. Otherwise it's just a trivial PR game. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Racist" is outlined by WP:LABEL as a term to avoid. "White supremacist" is essentially a neologism carrying the same meaning "racist" and is almost entirely used in a defamatory sense. I suppose this may also apply to "nationalist", but at very least this is a somewhat less loaded label. Nuke (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a shaky foundation. There are many potentially unflattering things that can be said about an organization that advocates for a separate whites-only nation and uses "ironic" Nazi imagery. By calling an accurate, well-supported term a 'label' in order to dismiss it, we're reducing the article for all the wrong reasons. We have to be willing to say what this is according to reliable sources. White supremacy is not meaningfully a neologism, there is a large body of work studying the concept. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the fact Tila Tequila, a Vietnamese woman, was present at the NPI's convention invoking that ironic Nazi imagery refutes at least part of your justification. Furthermore, no reliable source except critical attack pieces will actually make the claim that NPI wants a whites-only nation. NPI seemingly does not advocate anything except white identity politics and so on. Nuke (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References

The description of NPI as "white supremacist" is nowhere in the given sources. Surely this is original synthesis? Not standing up for the views of NPI in the least (and of course I shouldn't have to say this), but it's EXTREMELY disappointing that this hasn't been resolved. It's also very disconcerting that an admin is arguing ad hominem against it's removal. This site is here to report, not to editorialize. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia, please have this removed! BassHistory (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Or at the least add a reliable source! The fact that someone added BuzzFeed news as a source is extremely mediocre, and the NYT article explicitly does not characterize NPI as a "white supremacist" organization. BassHistory (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that my edit was reverted. I would like to reiterate: nowhere in the sources provided is NPI explicitly described as "white supremacist". The fact that my edit was reverted without being addressed here is extremely disingenuous. These actions are anti-intellectual, and erode the spirit of scholarship. You should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting alternative facts. Save it for your twitter accounts. BassHistory (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hogwash. First, the topic has been discussed here extensively. Second, it is not incumbent on other editors to seek consensus to revert your edits, but on you to seek consensus for them. Third, basic reading comprehension shows the New York Times source (1) cites the NPI as an example in an article explicitly about white supremacist groups, (2) makes no distinction between it and other such groups apart from being more "highbrow," and (3) offers no contrasting definition of "white nationalist" that would lead a reader to conclude it meant anything other than a synonym for "white supremacist." Your hyperbolic tone is unwarranted. Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

1) If the NPI being mentioned in the article makes it "white supremacist", than the University of Chicago is also "white supremacist". It is not used as an example of a "white supremacist" group, otherwise the authors would have used different language 2, 3) The NYT uses "nationalist" to describe NPI twice. It never uses "supremacist" to describe NPI. The words are clearly not synonyms. Nuance, please! Further, if the words are "synonyms", than you should have no objection to "supremacist" being removed from the leed, as the sources don't use it.BassHistory (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) That is such a tendentious reading of my argument—and the article itself—that it merits no response. (2, 3) The article uses the terms interchangeably. That has nothing to do with whether we should do so. Also note our article on white nationalism explicitly describes white supremacy as a subset of white nationalism, so if you're in favor of nuance we should clearly use the more specific term, which also happens to be the more commonly-understood term. Dyrnych (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

With respect, you've lost this argument. I'm not a racist either, as the person above said, but you need to be fair, even if you don't like the subject. This isn't your personal tabloid.NerdNinja9 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you attempting to contribute to this month-and-a-half-old discussion? I have no idea how the above comment offers anything meaningful. You are not the arbiter of consensus, nor is there any basis for for your bizarre last sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said I was anything of the sort. It's a statement of fact that your side has lost this argument, logically speaking. If someone's self-description (NPI does not describe itself as white-supremacist and disputes the use of the term) is "self-serving" then I can call you anything I want and any defense is automatically invalid. So, you're a racist. Good luck with your "self-serving" defense.NerdNinja9 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here. Twenty five seconds into this video and you can see why you're wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni_6sISHnqQ

Alt-right

I fail to understand why the inclusion of this text:

"Still, Spencer took pains to distinguish between the alt-right movement and the incoming Trump administration.
Steve Bannon, the president-elect’s newly named chief strategist who has served as the executive chairman of Breitbart News, described that media outlet over the summer as “the platform for the alt-right.” Spencer largely agreed with that assessment, but he also insisted he didn’t see either Trump or Bannon as members of the movement, though they have given him “hope.”
“I would say Steve Bannon’s comment that [Breitbart is] a platform of the alt-right is probably something I could agree with, say 90 percent, just in the sense that it's clearly moved away from the conservative movement”, Spencer said.
“It was pro-Trump, it was also a site that tons of people on the alt-right [go] to get their news from, they share [it]. I don’t think Breitbart is really ideologically alt-right, no, but it’s interesting and very hopeful for me that Bannon is at least open to these things.”

which comes from the same politico.com link used already in the article. @Volunteer Marek and @Dyrnych oppose the inclusion. I was told to take it to the talk page, so I am, albeit belatedly. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What does this have to do with the "white supremacist" label? I've moved this to a new section to avoid confusion, since the above issue has not necessarily been fully resolved. Am I missing something? Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

NPI National Policy Institute Website Address

Can I have permission to add the NPI National Policy Institute website http://www.npiamerica.org/ to the article as further reading? TonyMorris1983 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already listed in the infobox at the top of the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased and unreliable sources

Many sources come from unreliable and biased sources like BuzzFeed and the New York Times, and it is common knowledge that these sources are extremely biased against Republican/Conservative views. And to take claims of white supremacy from BuzzFeed (an organization that has a notorious history and has faced many allegations of racism against white people) seriously is unwise. Not to mention BuzzFeed and the New York Times have a history of calling anything that leans slightly right of Stalin "white supremacist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheepySheers (talk • contribs) 04:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times is regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia. BuzzFeed is also sometimes reliable (to many editors' surprise), and having faced allegations is uninformative, since who is making those allegations matters. There are many additional sources supporting the "white supremacist" point, also. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

However that's simply not the ideology the group advocates. White nationalism and white supremacy are very different things, one advocates an ethno-state and the other argues for the genetic superiority of the white race (something which is simply not true). And the organization has never stated to my knowledge that they believe white people are superior. SheepySheers (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As is already discussed above in mind-numbing detail, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not personal opinions or original research. Reliable sources have looked at them and their behavior and chosen to describe them as a white supremacist organization. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:LABEL takes precedent over the New York Times' "reliability", myself. This article no longer even mentions white identitarianism, NPI's official ideology, in any form. Nuke (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Lead currently contradicts the body of the article. The Lead states "based in Arlington, Virginia". The body states: "The group was based in Augusta, Georgia at its founding, but by 2013 had relocated to Montana. (In some reports, the group is listed as being based in Arlington, Virginia"

Which is it, Virginia or Montana? Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no proof of white supremacy

White supremacy: the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society. Please show evidence of any of NPI's contributors believing that whites should be the dominant group in ANY society. (Heavily partisan/biased sources like the New York times are not proof, as they are just wrong. Again - these people have never said that whites should dominate in all societies.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7399:A301:F115:78BF:6852:8115 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This content is verifiable because it is supported by Reliable sources such as the New York Times and BuzzFeed that say that NPI is a white supremacist organization. [[The fact that a source my be biased doesn't make it unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. You're being too emotional about this subject.NerdNinja9 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)