Talk:Richard B. Spencer

Punch

Is the punch on the day of Trump's inauguration really significant?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

#Nazi was trending on Twitter the night it happened with over 100k tweets with Spencer as the subject (saw it myself, no ref), that's a lot of tweets (in case you didn't know), see RichardSpencer Nazi on Twitter for more sources, info. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw it on TV here in Australia. Which is why I came to this page, to find out who he is. Yes, it's newsworthy and tweetable, but is it significant enough to be mentioned here?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The punch was needlessly mentioned twice, once each in two different sections of the article. I removed both mentions. The punch does not belong in a section on "controversies", because there is no controversy associated with it. No one is disputing that it happened, and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted. Nor does it belong in a section on Spencer's career, as the fact that he was assaulted does not form part of his career. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted" - there sort of is. See this New York Times article: Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose one can make a case for including the information somewhere in the article on that basis. One mention is quite enough, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not so sure myself whether this is really WP:DUE, but if it is included (I'll let others decide), one mention is enough for sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be the most important reason that he is famous, but that would make him a one-hit wonder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

("One-hit wonder", that's good.) I don't think the "controversy" section is ideal, because if we include free-speech advocates, "some commentators welcoming the attack and others deploring it" applies to almost everything he's done. This is why WP:CSECTIONs rarely work well. If we changed that section title to "activities" almost nothing would be different. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Combine "Career" and "Controversy" into "Activities"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. How does this look? Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to eliminate the subsections because they don't fit in chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On another issue, what is the source for it being an impromptu interview and for the fact that several masked men came up? I can only see one.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can see it's an impromptu interview, but feel free to change "impromptu interview" to "interview" if you actually consider the point important. Changed multiple men to one man. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure what was being conveyed by "impromptu"... Here is a source from the news service that was interviewing him at the time, if anyone's interested:[1] He was actually punched twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Man or person

Relating to the same topic, I have reverted twice the change from "man" to "person" in describing the attacker. The sources clearly say man. The ABC account based on eyewitness Zoe Daniel also says man.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Andral, please respect the BRD process and stop reverting. As you can see, Jack Upland initiated discussing on this issue two months ago and you continue to low-level edit war. This is disruptive even if you haven't violated the 3-revert bright-line rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleansing

Can be cited from here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.9 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a literal objective lie. Source of it is this quote, which is not advocating ethnic cleansing, but describing a historical event.

"Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully."

http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/blog/facing-the-future-as-a-minority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herewardwakes (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"White Supremacist Label -- Spencer is an Identarian"

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

---

Hi, clearly its inaccurate to label a person with white supremacist views if that persons states they're not. Spencer is an "identarian" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement and has stated as much very publicly on many occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed; in short, there is a clear consensus that reliable sources describe him and his views as white supremacist. We note that he disagrees, but we base our articles on what reliable sources say, not what someone proclaims themselves to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I have reliable sources that say the Pope is a Buddist, can you update his Wikipedia page? *eye roll* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to play at Wikipedia, then you have to play by its rules. Here is Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So in effect youre saying thet Richard Spencer is not a reliable source to use in order to assertain Richard Spencers political beliefs? Excuse me if I consider your opinion worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It may surprise you, but not everyone tells the truth about their motives and beliefs. And yes, if you had several sources which met our criteria saying the Pope was a Buddhist, they cold probably be used. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

White supremacists are famous for eschewing that label (example). That doesn't make them any less white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist" ("White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House."), we should go with the NPOV term "white nationalist". Using "supremacist" is debatable, since he apparently claims not to be so. It looks like we can all agree on "nationalist", so it may be a better choice. Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to make clear in the article that "white" is a meaningless term? I'm concerned that we may be unwittingly using the word performatively in the voice of Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the RfC we had recently on this issue, we'll stick with "white supremacist" for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall we have a second RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I should note that the "Views" subsection says, "In a 2016 interview for Time magazine, Spencer said he rejected white supremacy and the slavery of nonwhites, preferring to establish America as a white ethnostate.". We have to be consistent here. I can't check the Time reference however, because it's not free.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this inconsistent? It points out that he disputes the label in the first paragraph of the article. We've already been over this, and another RFC would be disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

He calls himself a "white nationalist" and so does The New York Times: "White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House.".Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and? Again, we're already been over this. He is both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. Both are accurate, but the latter is (slightly) more specific. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How do we know if he denies it? I think it is safer to go by reliable third-party sources and say, "white nationalist". It is already a strange term, but at least everyone appears to agree. We can then have a subsection in the body of the text about both phrases having been used, but the first sentence of the lede should be as NPOV as possible.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's clearly a White separatist, which can be a form of white supremacy. The ethno-state declaration is seen in an article from the Washington Post republished in another newspaper.[2]

By whom? Black separatists, or white separatists, want to live separately because they think they look different from us. It is ridiculous but does not necessarily mean that they think they are superior to us. Are there reliable third-party sources calling Spencer a "white separatist"? I think that may be even more NPOV and accurate than "white nationalist" given his insistence on a so-called ethno-state.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Active arbitration remedies

I've put this article under a 1RR restriction, which means you are only allowed one revert per 24 hours. Please read the talk header carefully. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

To add, as there was a RFC on "White Supremacist vs White Nationalist" any attempts to change the term without getting consensus beforehand may be reverted and a block may ensue. Pinging Bishonen to make sure she's okay with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Very good. I hope everybody takes your topnote[3] to heart. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

New Discussion: Compromise

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

I'll tag some involved editors to help:

• DrFleischman
• Zigzig20s
• Nomoskedasticity
• Rockypedia
• Electrosharksin
• Crillfish
• JRBx45x
• Grayfell
• EvergreenFir

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

We just had a lengthy RfC about this. This is not an OR violation as it's sourced and an accurate representation of how reliable sources describe him. OR would be me saying "Spencer said he likes Whites more than people of color.(source) Therefore he's a racist." Please remove the RfC template per WP:STICK. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What he said. The fact that Spencer rejects a label he doesn't like is irrelevant: James Earl Ray claims he's innocent, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia from calling him a murderer. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work because James Earl Ray was convicted of murdering MLK, so he legally did it. Calling Spencer a white supremacist is only based on various opinions. Not facts. I think that it violates the no original research policy. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You "think" it violates WP:OR? You're wrong, for several reasons. First and foremost, you've set up a false equivalency; you can't be "convicted" of being a white supremacist, and being "convicted" of something isn't the be-all end-all of determining what a subject is notable for. James Earl Ray is notable for being a murderer; Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist. The lead notes that he personally doesn't like that label. We've been over this ad nauseum, and you're bringing nothing new. Rockypedia (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work... Nope, that argument is exactly what you're trying to put over, namely that because Spencer (and Ray) don't like their well-earned labels, Wikipedia is required to insert some mushy waffling.

... based on various opinions. So, basically, you don't understand reliable sources, then? Perhaps you should put down the shovel and stop digging. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheBD2000: Please explain why you did not notify everyone involved in the previous RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, because at that time, I didn't know who Richard Spencer was nor did I know this page existed. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC tag. @TheBD2000: Before you do something like this on a page subject to discretionary sanctions make sure you know what you're doing. No discussion prior to starting this RFC and improper notifications indicate lack of good judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• This has already been exhaustively discussed and I don't see any dramatically new points being raised. I suppose the one possible exception is the line "...has without a doubt only caused problems". I don't agree with that. Being accurate is a goal, not a problem. He is only notable for being a white supremacist. Altering accurate wording just because some people don't like it seems a lot like political correctness. No dice. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• There's no reason to revisit this. We just had an rfc that established a strong consensus, you are not going to have much luck trying to change that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Please reread NOR. Opinions from reliable sources are fine. Opinions from editors are not. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Objection to RfC. This RfC is inherently disruptive since it comes on the heels of basically the same RfC that came to a pretty clear consensus. There is no explanation as to what has changed in the meantime or why the consensus would be any different this time around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate this being framed as a "compromise." "Compromise" implies that it is designed to settle a dispute. But there is no dispute. The dispute is over. Accept it. Move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I support the proposed change, and I thank User:TheBD2000 for raising the issue. Not all sources agree on "white supremacist" by any stretch of the imagination, as The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist" ("White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House."). However, as much as I want to improve Wikipedia and I have zero interest whatsoever in being quoted out of context or falsely accused of whitewashing anything, I fear we will never reach consensus, as the previous discussion about this was closed when we considered using the NPOV phrase "white separatist". So, I give up. This is a lost cause, pun unintended. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Objection to RfC. As has been pointed out already, we settled this exact question fairly recently. It was an exhaustive RfC and because it didn't come out the way TheBD2000 wanted (by overwhelming consensus, it should be noted), he has started another one. There's no new info being offered. There are no new arguments being offered. The small number of editors in favor of removing the "white supremacist" descriptor have an agenda to whitewash Spencer's image and aren't interested in making Wikipedia better overall. Rockypedia (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

off-topic

Please refrain from making personal attacks. I do have a persistent interest in making Wikipedia better, but not in wasting my time. The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist"; I don't think they are trying to "whitewash" anybody.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I didn't say the NYT is trying to whitewash anybody. I said a handful of editors are trying to whitewash Spencer's Wikipedia page. Please don't twist my words to fit your agenda. Rockypedia (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) And then you quoted me out of context, even though my suggestion was based on a direct quote from The New York Times, in order to make the article more NPOV and closer to the sources. Just like The New York Times, I am not trying to whitewash anybody. Please do not make personal attacks. Please stop. Please focus on the content and RS, not editors. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Actually I quoted you before you attempted to twist my words to fit your agenda. I don't see what's out of context about "I give up" and "This is a lost cause"; seems to clearly indicate your attitude towards working with other editors. Adding "please stop" and "please do not make personal attacks" to your posts doesn't excuse you ignoring the previous RfC. All of your points were debated already, as you know, and overwhelming consensus decided they weren't valid. Rockypedia (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Hey, I recommend you assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. I responded to User:TheBD2000 to be polite, but only succinctly because I didn't think we could reach consensus. I wish we could. We should be able to reach consensus and reflect RS like The New York Times, but last time the discussion was closed just as we were making progress. That's unfortunate. If you're going to suggest some of us are trying to whitewash instead of improve the article, that's discouraging and makes us want to give up. That's all. Now, I am not interested in talking about this endlessly. If you want to talk about improving the article to reflect RS, sure. If you want to talk about a nobody like me, I am not interested. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) You just stated you supported changing the descriptor in the lead to "American public speaker and commentator" (as proposed above); you're entitled to your opinion, but from the previous RfC it's clear that most editors don't agree with you. It was hashed out, and this whole section is yet another attempt to revive a POV edit that has little chance of succeeding. So yes, it's a waste of time, and yet you continue to contribute a whole bunch of edits to this waste of time, while claiming that you don't like to waste your time. Rockypedia (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I was responding to User:TheBD2000's constructive suggestion, and then I had to correct the record (I'm not trying to whitewash anything as you suggested, please don't say that I am, please stop). Ultimately, this is not about you; it's about User:TheBD2000. There is no need for you to reply again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I feel the need to correct the record; I wasn't responding to you when I added my objection comment, and I didn't single you out as trying to whitewash anything; I said the handful of editors interested in removing "white supremacist" from the lead are trying to whitewash Spencer's image, referring to edits attempted over the last year or more. There is no need for you to reply again. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Again, we just went through this. You're not the first person to try to soften Spencer's image by changing the lead. You probably won't be the last. But at the end of the day, consensus is that the current lead accurately and dispassionately summarizes what Spencer is primarily notable for. Rockypedia (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But what is the problem with my proposed edit, Rockypedia? It would only change this article for the better. We could still acknowledge his accusations of being a white supremacist, but we could use his actual profession as his descriptor. The big problem I see in this article is the use of the tense is. By saying that he is a white supremacist, we're saying it with absolute certainty. However, we cannot be absolutely certain that he is a white supremacist, especially when only some reliable sources call him one and he himself rejects the label (which is in my opinion a violation of WP:NOR). We do know however that he is a public speaker and commentator and yada-yada-yada. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal and any reasonable editor could agree (if we disregard consensus before I came on scene). TheBD2000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Since changes very similar to these have already been discussed and rejected, it's unrealistic to expect us to rehash this yet again. Presenting it as reasonable, even in good faith, doesn't make it reasonable. Put simply, he's notable for being a white supremacist publisher and a white supremacist public speaker. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, and downplaying the only reason he even has an article would be exactly that. No fringe theories, no euphemisms, no gentle PR games, no weasel-word nonsense pretending there's some profound philosophical nuance to how he describes his flavor of pretentious racism. Please drop the stick and find something else to do. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the talk page section Playing right into his hand, this issue was previously discussed. (I'm just finding this section now.) When these editors made, in my opinion, good points, they were ignored. Richard Spencer is notable for founding a couple companies and being a public speaker and commentator, but there is no reason to call him a white supremacist when you can use something less insulting than that term. TheBD2000 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources call him that. Consensus was for that term. You don't like it, we get that. But the glue factory is overstocked at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheBD2000: Your above two posts make it sound more and more like you are advocating the previous RFC should be ignored simply because you weren't part of it and disagree with the outcome. Please drop that line of argument. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Revival

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

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

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

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

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

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

We avoid stating facts as opinions, and it is a fact that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist. We include his opinion disagreeing with that characterization, but that opinion does not outweigh the statements of a wide variety of unquestionable reliable sources. The consensus on this subject is clear and convincing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, it is not a fact that he is a white supremacist, various opinion pieces call him that, but it is not factual. No one's opinion can be factual unless the words come out of their mouth. Secondly, some reliable sources call him a white nationalist, and some call him a white supremacist. As per WP:YESPOV, If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Calling him a white supremacist is indisputably a direct violation of that policy. One final note, the main section of WP:NPOV says that This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Is it certain that calling him a white supremacist violates the NPOV policy. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 20:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: I think there's a confusion between the truth and a neutral point of view. NPOV is about accurately and fairly reflecting reliable sources. The guidance on opinions (WP:YESPOV) is generally about when reliable sources are conflicting about their descriptions or when discussing notable but individual opinions. It states that "As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" (emphasis mine). To the best of my understanding, sources call Spencer either a white supremacist or a white nationalist. This difference in labeling is not, in my opinion, "conflict" among reliable sources as the no sources assert the other label is incorrect. Rather, there's variation in the label used, but no dispute about those labels. Sources use "white supremacist" (USA Today, AL.com, BBC 1 and 2, The Independent, CNN, Inside Higher Ed, VICE, The Detroit News, NY Times, Missoulian). Buzzfeed labels him a white nationalist but his "think tank" as white supremacist ([4]). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses nationalist and supremacist in the same article ([5]) but in another article calls him just a supremacist ([6]). Others call him a white nationalist (LA Times 1 and 2, Boston Globe, WaPo, Time, NY Mag, NY Times, The Guardian). A few call him a neo-Nazi (NBC affiliate WPMI, NBC News). Are there any reliable sources that contest these labels? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The word "conflicting" is defined as "incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those reports are arguably contradictory but they do vary. Thus, those reports are conflicting. Wikipedia stating with certainty that Spencer is a white supremacist is obviously taking sides. White supremacy is a political ideology or opinion. Opinion is defined as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are only stating their opinion, not fact. As someone's opinion cannot be verified unless they voice it themselves. That's just common sense. WP:YESPOV says that opinions can't be asserted as facts. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources aren't stating these labels as opinions though. They're stated as fact. Additionally, conflicting, in my reading of NPOV, is when sources disagree or use mutually exclusive labels/descriptions. But moving past that, what are you suggesting we do to address what you see as a problem? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: They are stating their opinion as they can't read Richard Spencer's mind, and the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces. but that can be argued about all day. Moving past that, I suggest that we change the opening paragraph to: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and we make a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." (The last one can be worded differently.) That way, nothing in the article is controversial or libelous (NOT a legal threat), and everyone wins. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See, "the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces" is utterly incorrect. The sources linked above and in the article are not opinion pieces. They are verifiable statements by reliable sources. An opinion piece would be an op-ed or a self-published source like a blog or guest column. The sources are unwavering in their description of Spencer as either a White nationalist or a White supremacist. Part of Wikipedia's venerability policy as well as WP:NPOV is that we reflect reliable sources without inserting our own bias/POV, even if those sources disagree with our views or are possibly wrong. The essay WP:TRUTH explains this well. We are a tertiary source which summaries reliable [{WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] by giving due weight to the various aspects of a topic based on the totality of those reliable sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sources that describe Spencer as a white supremacist are opinion pieces. He has also been described as a white nationalist and a white separatist. As we all know, those terms contradict each other. Thus, Wikipedia is taking sides by calling him a white supremacist and violating WP:YESPOV. Also keep in mind that it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Diaz: I think you do not understand what an opinion piece is. These links might help: WP:BIASED (and WP:RS in general) and WP:POVS. A news article from BBC or NYTimes are not opinion pieces unless they're in a section for op-eds or guest columns. WP:LIBEL is for unsourced libelous material. All info here is sourced with reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have already read all of those. WP:BIASED says that "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Also WP:NPOV states clear as day: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So WP:YESPOV overrides the other policies and even consensus. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice that the examples are ascribing opinions to individuals. We don't have that here; the opinions are by news sources generally, not individuals. I feel I've said my part. If others with to try to further explain this to you, they can. It is clear that YESPOV is not readily applicable in this case as we don't have opinions from individuals and we are not dealing with op-eds. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"White supremacist," "white nationalist" and "white separatist" aren't contradictory, though - not in the least. All are various facets of the belief system that white people are somehow a special, chosen people superior to others and who should establish, by force, systems of legal segregation or even ethnic cleansing to expel "inferior" races from places where whites choose to live. I'm unaware of any serious viewpoint that those terms contradict or conflict - to the contrary, they are entirely complementary. The reliable sources cited here do not treat the terms as contradicting or conflicting and that is what ultimately matters on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Calling him a white nationalist is indirectly refusing to say that he is a white supremacist, thus contradicting the term. White separatism and white supremacy are two different subgroups of white supremacy; one can't be both, thus those two terms contradict each other and they all contradict each other. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think your extreme parsing of these terms is reflected by the reliable sources. Any white "separation" would inherently involve forcible expulsion of people of other races, and such an act is inherently supremacist inasmuch as it treats white people as superior to those other races. Again, more to the point, the sources say what they say about Spencer and we rely on those sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

"No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once!"- that's your opinion, and pretty clear WP:OR. I disagree and have a different opinion. But neither of our opinions matter. Only what reliable secondary sources say. You're beating a dead horse at this point. Sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: The Southern Poverty Law Center says: "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies." Keep in mind the word "or". It's one or the other. Not both. Also, everyone knows the term "white supremacist". So sources that don't call him a white supremacist are, technically, refusing to call him that. Some even call him a Neo-Nazi! We all know there's a difference there. Ergo, different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about the matter, and WP:YESPOV kicks in and we must treat all of his labels as opinions and not facts. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you need an English class. "Or" in that sentence doesn't preclude the possibility of both being the case. But I think you know that, and you're bending yourself (and logic) at this point in order to force your POV onto this issue, and it's been my experience that discussions of this type are useless. Sorry. If you want to discuss something rationally, I'll hear you out. On this issue.... dead horse. Rockypedia (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming WP:IDHT/WP:TENDENTIOUS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I am in no way being irrational here. The conjunction "or" is defined as "used to link alternatives". These sources are conflicting on the issue of what to label him. Some saying "white supremacist", some saying "white separatist" (they are NOT the same thing), some saying "white nationalist" (ergo refusing to label him as either subgroup), and some even calling him a Neo-Nazi (which is indisputably different than the three previous labels). For the umpteenth time, here is what WP:YESPOV (which is NEVER overridden by other policies or even consensus) says: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. "Conflicting" means "Incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those four terms are contradictory and they ARE at variance. Hence, that paragraph violates the rule. NOTHING is wrong with changing it to make the article less of an attack on him. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You have 3 rather experienced editors disagreeing with your interpretation of NPOV here. The terms have different meanings, but the sources are not conflicting by using different but related terms. Conflicting sources is when they fundamentally are at odds with each other. That is not the case here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Uh, no, pick up a dictionary. They conflict. They vary and they are contradictory. This is the English language that we're talking about here. WP:YESPOV does NOT say that conflicting sources are "funadamentally at odds with each other". What you're doing is just making a pathetic last-minute attempt to defend this libelous version of his article even though it's a clear violation of NPOV. Accept it. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no... you're the only one who seems to think these are "conflicting assertions". EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

@The Diaz: no, sorry. Can you repeat that? I don't understand the extraneous punctuation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The summary of this argument, Richard Spencer has been called various things by various sources, some of which are contradictory, all are at variance. That meets the definition of conflicting, thus, they conflict. Ergo, the current article's opening paragraph violates the WP:YESPOV policy. Better? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Time to call the knackers. Nothing has changed since last month. Pinging multiple editors over the exact same issue, yet again, is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Just making sure it doesn't go unnoticed. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 20:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's very obvious. It doesn't make it any less disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz, I don't appreciate being pinged to a discussion quite as disruptive as this. Please drop the stick before this becomes an administrative issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DrFleischman. The Diaz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve here with your pinging (canvassing, really) and your all. caps. yelling. but this is not Facebook. Time to drop this stick. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Libel

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

---

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

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

The Diaz Drop it. This is not a request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: No defense for the claim? I'm within my rights to challenge this material which could land the Wikimedia foundation and its editors in legal trouble. All I'm trying to do it protect us. Read the policy. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: Okay, let me be clearer. You can educate yourself on libel elsewhere. Continue in this vein and I will topic ban you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apophasis... EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Wording

I think this edit by Rockypedia, changing "removed from" back to "kicked out", is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia does not have to use "verbiage straight from the source". Rather, it should use appropriate language. "Kicked out" is a vulgar, slang expression, that would never be used in a respectable encyclopedia. "Removed from" conveys the same meaning in suitable language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed from seems better, especially for non-native speakers/readers who are unfamiliar with idioms like "kicked out". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from anything else, we do need to be accurate. Was Spencer literally kicked out of the conference? That might be the only case in which it would be appropriate to use such language, and even then we would have to make it clear that the expression was meant literally, and not in its colloquial sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer removed from, since it's more encyclopedic in tone. There is no requirement to parrot the same language as the source, when the meaning is not in doubt and there's more than one way to convey the same thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Fleischman. There is nothing to stop you from simply reinstating my edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Removed from sounds far more professional for an encyclopedia, assuming that there was no actual kicking going on (which seems to be the case). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Richard Spencer is a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. 75.120.137.83 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This proposal lacks consensus. As has been explained many times, a consensus of editors concluded that we should describe Spencer as a white supremacist. Feel free to read through the discussion archives to find out why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2017 Auburn Riot

Trivia? KMF (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy merge within the "public speaking" subsection. I added a "speedy deletion" tag in good faith, but a speedy merge could work too.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know about trivia or speedy, but I would support a merge. That page is really about Spencer and Auburn students' reactions to him speaking there. It's probably a flash in the pan, and our article here can certainly accommodate the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Don't merge, just come up with a few original sentences. At the end of the day this was an extremely minor event. "racist gives speech, college kids don't like it" is pretty routine stuff. The article on the nonexistent riot that was written before the supposed riot even happened is going to be deleted. That much is clear from the AFD, so any "official" merge is more or less out the window. I would suggest using the sources already present in that article, which detail the lead-up to it and the legal challenges to just come up with a sentence or two noting the legal challenges, which are the only thing remotely notable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We might want to use this article as an RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not "separated"

Spencer just said in his talk at Auburn University that he and his wife are not separated, contrary to what this article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.13.252 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Three reliable, recent sources (Washington Post, Daily Beast, Raw Story) all say he's separated, or at least he was recently, If that's changed then we need a reliable source to say it before we can include it in our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought Spencer himself is a reliable enough source to determine if his marriage is over or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.200.80 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally yes, but in this case we have three organizations with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy all saying that he's separated, which makes his own statements highly suspect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Spencer denies calling for peaceful ethnic cleansing.

Primary source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1JJA6UiEio&t=41m10s (timestamp if your browser doesn't take you there 0h41m10s) - Q&A in Auburn, Alabama speech, 18 April 2017. The mic on the audience side was terrible, but I'll try to quote:

Audience member (wearing light pink): So, on your site you've stated that you do agree that blacks have been oppressed over the course of history ...

Spencer: Yes.

Audience member: ... You also said that whites were [involved?] in slavery and [inaudible] Indian reservations.

Spencer: Putting them on reservations was probably the nicest thing we ever did.

Audience member: Okay, my next point. You've also called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing". "Peaceful".

Spencer: I have actually not called for that, to be...

Audience member: [inaudible]

Spencer: No, I haven't.

Audience member: On your website. (continues while Spencer talks, inaudible)

Spencer: No, I used the term "peaceful ethnic cleansing" actually in a speech, and I was describing the Paris Peace Conference of 1919

Audience member: ... [peace?]fully ethnically cleansed.

Spencer: Well, let me answer that and you can ask your next one. I did not call for ethnic cleansing. I was describing the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which is actually an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing. After the First World War, this terrible event, a brothers' war that ultimately destroyed our civilization, far more than World War 2, to be honest, there was a nation-building experiment that took place in Paris in 1919. They knew old nations were reborn, Poland being an example, a state that did not exist, but a nation that's a people that did exist; new nations like Yoguslavia were created out of [?] [in a way?] - that was an example of nationbuilding, and yes, that was an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing. People were defined by nationality, and ethnicity, and religion, and yes, the map was redrawn. What happened in the Soviet Union's also an example of that. There was actually a kind of nationbuilding experiment where they gave peoples a national poem or something like that. Ukraine is an example of, you know, a synthetic nation, to be honest.

Audience member: So, on your alt-right website, you wrote an essay titled "Is black genocide right?" and it said, and I quote [copied from archive], "Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, 'Does human civilization actually need the Black race?' 'Is Black genocide right?' and, if it is, 'What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?'" So, my last question, is how you can stand up there and claim that it's easier to be black because of a stronger sense of ethnic identity, in a room full of African-American peers, African-American police officers standing out there protecting you, when you have things like that written [on your blog?] [audience starts applauding].

Spencer: That, that piece was not actually at altright.com, that was on alternativeright.com, and that piece was written by Colin Liddell who was making a rhetorical point that, I don't know what to say, take it up with him. It's not...

Richard Spencer seems to disown this essay, which was written by a different author, and the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" claim published widely by SPLC. The essay does not mention "peaceful ethnic cleansing" either. All that I can find of that claim is out-of-context quotes and quotes thereof. So I suggest editing the article in a way that reflects what the sources say about its subject (x source says he supports peaceful ethnic cleansing, y source says he disowned it in 2017), as soon as we can find non-primary sources supporting the fact that Spencer has now disowned this claim. This is kind of a WP:BLP (WP:GRAPEVINE) issue now. Otherwise, I would like to see sources quoting him in-context where he did indeed make this claim. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We use secondary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I recognised that in my final paragraph. I'm putting it here so that people interested in contributing to this article have a way to do that if they find a secondary source. I haven't found one yet, but since the speech is so new, we can expect secondary sources to come out later. Another reason I put it here, again in my final paragraph, I would like to see an in-context quote from Spencer about his alleged advocacy of "peaceful" genocide. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added even if the sourcing were better. Various reliable sources have said that he called for peaceful ethnic cleansing. The fact that he later denied saying it is hardly relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: After wading through a speech he gave four years ago cited by SPLC and The Daily Beast, I now agree that he at the time supported the idea (watch from 20m00s onwards if you really want to). He doesn't propose a single solution for the North American white ethnostate he advocates, but he does talk about the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" as one of the possible example solutions which he says is one of many examples where "liberals" were not in favour of multiculturalism or "race mixing". He puts this specifically in the context of his movement by saying "it can be done" and "for this to be done, we need our cause". That is the only in-context quote that is cited in any of the sources.

On to reliability. Our sources are: a magazine website (The Atlantic) an editorial page (The Daily Beast), and the SPLC which is basically a political advocacy group similar to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (it just for advocates for a different political cause). I don't know the reputation of the SPLC (I am outside the US), but I usually do not rely on pressure groups, political parties, or political advocacy groups to inform an article on the subject that group has interests in advocating or opposing, apart from saying "x source says this". For the other two sources, per WP:RS it is important to look at a source's editorial policy in order to judge reliability.

I think it is important to accurately represent the views of the subject (a living person), even if they change; and also represent major changes in their political ideology. I think it's especially important if they are a political activist. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly just the SPLC and the Daily Beast that reported that quote, and you're being disingenuous by setting up that straw man to make it seem like there's no good sources. CNN, The Atlantic , the Telegraph, NBC News... the list goes on, as I'm sure you know. The fact that Spencer realized later that the phrase isn't good for his efforts to make white supremacy more mainstream isn't a good enough reason to remove it from his Wikipedia page, sorry. If reliable secondary sources eventually report that Spencer has changed his mind and said "I once called for peaceful ethnic cleansing but now I think that's a bad idea", THAT would be an example of something that should then be included in the same paragraph. Until that happens, the sources are clear. Rockypedia (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, plus, SPLC is a reliable source despite being having an advocacy component since it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy--as reflected in by the many, many citations by mainstream, reliable news outlets (this is a case in point), as well as various discussions throughout Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I never said that I want it removed from this page. I don't want that, so I agree with you. I keep saying that I want the page to represent the changes in his views. What I have in mind is "In 2013, Spencer called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' to halt the 'deconstruction' [...]. In 2017, he denied calling for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing'." Let the reader make up their own mind about this guy's lack of integrity, to put it that way. My intention with arguing about reliable sources was not to use it to forward my argument to represent the changes in his views (you can see that the page already uses "SPLC says he called for..."). DrFleischman first brought up the reliability of sources, so I used the sources this article has. If there are more reliable sources out there, this article should definitely use them instead, per WP:VERIFY. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine in theory, and as I said, if you have a reliable secondary source that says "In 2017, he denied calling for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing'" or something to that effect, then great, add it. Until then, you're interpreting a very unclear snippet of conversation yourself, and I personally believe that would be WP:OR. Other editors may disagree and I invite them to weigh in. Rockypedia (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using the term "disown" in this discussion since it's leading to some confusion. The primary sources make clear that Spencer has explicitly denied having called for peaceful ethnic cleansing. That should not be included since Spencer isn't a reliable source, and we have various reliable sources saying that he did in fact call for peaceful ethnic cleansing. We seem to be in agreement on that. *** The second question though, which it seems BB is more focused on, is whether we can say that Spencer has changed his views on peaceful ethnic cleansing. On that question my position is no. In my reading, neither the primary sources nor the secondary sources say he has changed his views on the subject. Denying that you said something (or believed something) is not the same as recanting it (taking it back). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at myself; again you are more cogent than I am. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

User:Nomoskedasticity: You removed this paragraph, which says Spencer disinvited a homophobe from one of his events, with WP:TOPIC as a justification. I don't think it's off topic--why do you think it is?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

...which says Spencer disinvited a homophobe from one of his events No, it doesn't. It says someone "was reportedly disinvited from an NPI event", which is two layers of weasel-wording (passive voice and "reportedly") that doesn't even mention Spencer, the actual topic of this article. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes but the NPI is run by Spencer. Who else would disinvite the speaker? We could restore the content and rephrase it to avoid WP:WEASEL. The Southern Poverty Law Center says, "Richard Spencer, president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute who is considered one of the founders of the Alt Right movement, has also made overtures toward LGBT people, explicitly barring homophobes from the organization’s annual conference in 2015. Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN) was reportedly disinvited from the event for his anti-gay views, while Jack Donovan, an openly gay Alt-Right author, was a key speaker.". It's bad writing for, Spencer disinvited him. I guess there is a problem with "reportedly", but that's really an issue with the SPLC, which shouldn't be a reliable source (guilt by association, rumours, etc.) To be safe, we could add, "Spencer has barred homophobes from his conferences."Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The subsection currently gives the impression that Spencer is anti-gay, as it only mentions his opposition to same-sex marriage. Yet RS suggest otherwise. I think we need to restore the aforementioned information (or the trimmed suggestion above) to avoid falling prey to undue weight and misleading content.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tough one. I can certainly see Zigzag's point, but I favor removal of the paragraph. Opposing same-sex marriage isn't necessarily homophobic, and we shouldn't be ascribing decisions made by NPI to Spencer without verification. If there are reliable sources saying that Spencer made these decisions, then we should certainly include them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr, we could fix this quickly, just add "Spencer has barred homophobes from his conferences." and reference it with the SPLC link. Or, are you suggesting removing the entire "sexual orientation" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right - I missed that one. But not conferences plural, just the 2015 conference. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, problem solved. Glad to see we could fix this quickly this time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please just facts

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

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

He does personally embrace that label. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and there is a clear consensus to describe Spencer as a white supremacist. We do very prominently note that Spencer disputes the label and prefers to be described as an identitarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Lies

In a 2016 interview for Time magazine, Spencer said he rejected white supremacy and the slavery of nonwhites, preferring to establish America as a white ethnostate.[48]

This passage is in the actual article, yet the very same article still calls him a white supremacist.

White nationalism =/= White supremacy.

Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and there is a clear consensus to describe Spencer as a white supremacist. Read this to understand why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Spencer's views on Islam

In reply to Drmies, no, it is not "editorializing" to mention what Spencer said about Islam in an interview, as you wrongly suggested here. What would actually be editorializing would be adding something to the article about how Spencer's comments were right or wrong, brave truth-telling or evil "Islamophobia" - in other words, inserting one's own personal opinions. I did nothing like that - I simply restored some useful content that gives readers a better idea of Spencer's views. In response to your comment "it is not up to you to select what's noteworthy and what isnt", I would simply reply that editors have to use their own judgment about what content is appropriate to articles - otherwise it is impossible to write an encyclopedia. WP:NOTE is not at issue here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FKC in this scenario. It's right in WP:OR. Although secondary sources are preferable, as a community we frequently cite primary sources when secondary sources aren't available. Yes, sometimes that means exercising some editorial judgment to decide what's sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion and what isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• DrFleischman, that particular exercise of editorial judgment is precisely what editorializing is all about. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you were editorializing since you restored the edit and thus tacitly enforced the choice made to include this bit of content but not another. DrF, "we frequently cite"--maybe, but in this case there was nothing to begin with: this was the only bit of information making up this section. <Redacted per WP:BLPTALK> Drmies (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

<Redacted per WP:BLPTALK>

Spencer's opinion on Islam matters for the obvious, common-sense reason: Islam is an important force in the world today and it influences politics. Since Spencer is known for his political views and actions, his opinions on a politically important subject like Islam clearly are relevant. There's no reason to repeat everything he ever said on the topic, but a few representative quotations or comments are quite appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You can repeat that as often as you like, but it remains your opinion that his opinions on Islam are important to note given...the state of the world? That would be your take on the state of the world, then. Look, you want to avoid this kind of conflict? Find secondary sources--they are the basis of an encyclopedia. Also, are you saying that stuff about BLP applicability to remind yourself? Because I assure you I am well aware of the policy and where it applies. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Spencer's view of Islam is relevant, and it seems also the opinion of one other person is that Spencer's view of Islam is relevant. So far no one is supporting your opinion that Spencer's view of Islam is irrelevant. Therefore, you should be reverted (or you should self-revert). As for BLP, I frankly cannot be bothered trying to do something about your violations of the policy just now, but if you keep on violating it, over and over, then maybe I would feel differently - or someone else might take action. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your sample size of 3 people is not sufficient for determining whether or not this material should be included. If you really want to see what editors-at-large think, request an RfC. They're very easy to set up. For the record, I haven't formed an opinion on this particular bit, but if you start an RfC I'll certainly research it more deeply and comment. Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• In response to FKC, I am not going to revert Drmies right now, because I believe in consensus-building over edit warring. I can't help but think that there is more heat than light in the interaction between the two of you at this point. Maybe you can continue your discussion to user talk, and others can weigh in on whether this content should stay or go? Another way forward would be for Drmies to acknowledge that two experienced editors have made reasonable policy-based arguments and to graciously accept our preferred (longstanding) version until consensus swings the other way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Haha, Dr. F., no, I'm not going to take that poison pill, no matter how kindly you offer that to me. :) I just noticed that FreeKnowledgeCreater thinks that this guy's opinion of Islam is relevant and that thus it should be included--well, that's editorializing. Editorial judgment, in my opinion, is deciding what verified content should be in and what should be out, but here we're still dealing with what is essentially a primary source. And what is that source, anyway? Turns out it's an interview with a non-notable outfit, published on the website of a radio station owned by a neo-nazi outfit (sorry, "white nationalist", haha). So in essence, what you are allowing is for some person to get hisself interviewed by the PR agency for persons of that ilk, and accept that as a license to insert this material, thereby allowing said material to be disseminated even further--besides adding a link to Washington Summit Publishers, a partisan organization. And did y'all notice that he says "I am also the founder and Editor of Radix Journal," and thus this is basically his own website?

    It is my judgment that, given these intricacies, adding this content is little more than resume padding and linkspamming. And you may say that the content of the edit isn't positive toward the subject, but you know as well as I do that people with such opinions attract people with similar opinions, and that thus there is no such thing as bad publicity for them. Surely Wikipedia doesn't want to help them in their ambitions. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't make these sorts of editorial decisions based on what the subject would want or not want included, and honestly I don't think you should either. I make it based on what I think editors would find important. Personally, I think a leading white supremacist's views on Islam are inherently quite noteworthy, especially in the current political climate in which there seems to be a nexus of bigotry on the far right among racists, xenophobes, and Islamophobes. It is of tremendous importance to understand the extent to which those interests overlap. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, you keep saying the same thing and making the same mistake. I am not making an editorial decision: I am merely excluding a bunch of nonsense that boy spouted on his own website, nonsense that lacks secondary sourcing. So now you're arguing it wasn't your preference for content but rather what you think our readers want to read...but that's the same thing, from an encyclopedic point of view. How about you let the reader use Google when they want to find stuff that lacks secondary sourcing? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I was saying that I was making an editorial decision (not you) , and I think it was an appropriate one that is neither forbidden nor discouraged by any policy or guideline. The only relevant rule I can find is WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We're not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

People like Spencer say a lot of crazy things, and Radix is his own outfit/mouthpiece. There's no reason to include this unless it's covered by an independent, reliable source. To say otherwise is to invite massive coatracking and/or invite long lists of all his crazy thoughts and positions being listed here. We should stick to what RS say is noteworthy. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Fyddlestix and Drmies. If his opinion on this receives outside coverage that's a different story, but using his own journal is far from secondary sourcing. Parabolist (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you're aware - secondary sourcing isn't required. Primary sourcing isn't preferred, but it's explicitly allowed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And if this was pertinent information about Spencer himself, it'd be great! But as is, unless Spencer's opinions on Islam are also considered newsworthy by secondary sources, they don't really belong on his biography. Parabolist (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Views on abortion

I suggest adding a subsection, "Views on abortion," based on:

• Wood, Graeme (June 2017). "His Kampf". The Atlantic. Retrieved May 16, 2017. He doesn't mind gay marriage, and he favors legal access to abortion—partly to reduce the number of blacks and Hispanics. "Smart people are not using abortion as birth control … It is the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics who use abortion as birth control," he said recently on AltRight.com's YouTube channel. "This can be something that can be a great boon for our people, our race."

This passage, by the way, makes it sound like he is indeed a "supremacist." So it seems quite important to add this info. It could end the lack of consensus over supremacist v. nationalist once and for all (for example, it made me change my mind--I no longer think he may be "just" a nationalist). Thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems like it's worth brief a sentence or two based on that source. Like many things he says, this is a fringe perspective which isn't supported by reality, and it would be worth considering how to mention this without subtly validating it. Even looking past the obscene and obvious racism of the statement, it's utterly unscientific, as "abortion as birth control" in that context is a broad qualifier which could include or exclude whatever is convenient. Fertility and intelligence explains that abortion might be slightly more common among high IQ people, also. This wouldn't belong in this article, but it's not something to be ignored, either, so...

The connection to nationalism vs supremacism is a very interesting one that didn't occur to me. Not sure how/if we should directly use it for that point, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course his ideas are wrong. Based on the premise that he apparently believes in the meaningless construct of "whiteness" (sic), we shouldn't have to repeat that. My point is that 1) He supports abortion, which is new information, and not a given (most right-wingers do not). 2) He apparently supports a eugenicist use of abortion, which proves his belief in so-called white supremacy if I am reading this correctly? In other words, I don't necessarily believe The New York Times if they call him a "white supremacist" without giving us specific examples, but if he supports aborting blacks and not whites, that is the very definition of that label, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so how do we present this as due weight without validating it? Should we just include the quote and let it speak for itself? I don't particularly like giving him a platform without context. Should this be directly connected to supremacism, or is that WP:SYNTH? I'm asking, not being rhetorical. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we could add a subsection, "Views on abortion," and write, "He supports abortion, especially for blacks and Hispanics." The problem is what you call "validation"--do you think some people might read this and not see how weird/wrong that is? How do we contextualize it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That wording works. Since this was presented as being about race, it could be included in that subsection instead of its own, but either way works for me. If we explain his views on abortion in any more detail, we should explain that it's based on false statistical information. It's also wrong in many other ways, of course. Unfortunately I do think some will read it without understanding how wrong it is, but I don't know the solution. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Does he bring everything back to so-called "race" though? (I have to use the phrase "so-called" because again I think it's a meaningless construct; we're all the same.) Right now the article makes it sound like he's just some rich kid trolling the left. If he wants to use abortion to reduce the number of blacks and Hispanics, that's no longer trolling, but an actual extreme policy position. Another reason to include this info. So how do we add this content? Do others (like User:DrFleischman for example) have any views?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's certainly noteworthy. I'd support a sentence at the end of the "Race" subsection saying, "Spencer supports legal access to abortion, in part because he believes it would reduce the number of black and Hispanic people, which he says would be a 'great boon' to white people." It would be overkill and awkward reading to put this in a separate one-sentence "Abortion" subsection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Could we please use 'claims' instead of 'says'? "Says" suggests he speaks for so-called white people, which is untrue.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm rarely, rarely a fan of "claims" over "says," and this is no exception. Whether reducing the number of minorities would be a "great boon" to white people is squarely a matter of personal opinion, an opinion to which he is entitled. I only support "claims" in cases in which dubious factual allegations are made. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Would you like to add the content please? By the way, we are already using the same RS for his mother's background (with a direct quote).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman: I'm confused. I thought you'd agreed to use "claims" but you ended up writing "says." Did you change your mind please?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Roman Salute vs Nazi Salute

Shouldn't it be referred to as the Roman salute in the article? That's what the members of the Alt-right all refer to it as from the videos I've seen.68.149.54.222 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)