Talk:Jared Taylor

Yes he is a white supremacist

I first thought he isn't because he distantiates himself from being one in an interview from CNN. But because Wikipedia users always change it back to White Supremacist based on liberal sources I 'm convinced and this is totally according to WP and objective and not an opinion for sure. Thanks for informing me Wikipedia. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, great use of the word "distantiates". Rockypedia (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: be careful. We will be knee deep in another RfC on neologisms if we start encouraging that kind of thing. Edaham (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And "demonetization" below (does it have something to do with monetary policy?). Perhaps there is something in the drinking water. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He literally said Asians are superior to whites. Doesn't that prove that he isn't a white supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.58.229 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017‎

No, it really, really doesn't. 'White supremacy' doesn't mean what he or you seem to think it means, and he is absolutely not a reliable source for this definition. The "Asian supremacy" thing has only a flimsy influence on his practical positions, making it an obvious deflection. He isn't advocating whites voluntarily give up their rights and land to become politically inferior to Asian people. He is, however, advocating that whites work to take political power and social influence from all other races (in ways that would necessarily require violence). Further, Taylor isn't an impartial source for this terminology regardless, which makes his preferred euphemisms irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so anyone who thinks that a race of people has interests as a group and should protect their borders and other rights is a supremacist? So basically 95% of the planet [and basically everyone who is not White] would be a supremacist, by this logic?24.79.130.133 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. If you would like to learn about white supremacy, Wikipedia has an article on it, and I'm sure many of the sources at that article could be informative. This talk page, however, is not the place to discuss the general topic, only to discuss improving the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is NOT a white supremacist! He has stated numerous times that he has no desire to be in a dominate position over any race. Jared has stated numerous times that Asians have shown higher scores on IQ tests just has he has stated whites core higher than blacks. And he uses documented tests to gain his conclusion. White supremacists do not acknowledge any race intellectually superior than its own! Jared Taylor is a segregationist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTyson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We've already been over this countless times, including this very talk page section. See this article's talk page archives for multiple additional explanations of why his self-description is both irrelevant and incorrect. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because you believe whites are more intelligent than other races and should be left alone doesn't mean you want whites to dominate other races. Weird how people conflate the two. 68.106.54.68 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Want to be left alone"? By getting others to move elsewhere? Doug Weller talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How is Jordan Peterson a white supremacist? Can anyone reason on wikipedia without blindly reading left-wing sources? White supremacists assert that white people are morally superior, and often biologically superior (using pseudo-science), compared to non-whites. Jared Taylor NEVER says ANYTHING like this. He simply wants America to be white because thats how it started off. Hitler was a white supremacist. Alfred Rosenberg was a white supremacist. David Duke is a white supremacist (as it has been quoted: "White people don't need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals."). HOWEVER, Jared Taylor IS A WHITE NATIONALIST. Can anybody offer me a quote from him that proves his perception that whites are morally and/or biologically superior to other non-white groups? No. Because he is a white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018‎

Wait, Jordan Peterson? Was that just a typo, or was it a Jungian slip? We've already been over this. Taylor is unreliable and non-neutral. Reliable, independent sources describe his beliefs as white supremacist. Citing direct quotes to support controversial ideologies would be original research. Neither Taylor, nor Duke, nor Peterson, nor anonymous editors, are reliable sources for the definition of white supremacy. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay Grayfell, i'm going to tell you something that may anger you. But using biased media articles as a means to label someone a white supremacist is less objective than using rationality. The most rational steps to go through in this case would be: 1. Describe white supremacy, and 2. Evaluate Jared Taylor's rhetoric to see if it is congruent with the agreed-upon definition for white supremacy. In this case, guess what, you don't need to rely on Jared's self-serving definitions. The burden of proof is on you to determine whether he is a white supremacist, and you have not actually determined whether he is or not. You only found some left-wing articles that called him a 'supremacist' to further their own agenda to demonize anybody on the right-wing side of politics. The sources include: New York Times (a left wing newspaper), Washington Post (a left wing newspaper), Michael Newton (an author who specializes in fiction and has absolutely no credentials in sociology or any other relevant discipline; http://michaelnewton.homestead.com/bio.html), Elizabeth Bryant Morgenstern (a professor in sociology who seems obsessed with giving conference presentations on the Holocaust, definitely no bias there; http://wh.agh.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Elizabeth_Bryant_CV.pdf). Clean your room and change it to white nationalist, bucko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh no! Someone was wrong about Wikipedia in defense of a racist! They used the word "rationality"! This apparently makes me angry for some reason! GRRRR!

So according to you:

• Newton isn't a sociologist, so therefore isn't reliable.
• Morgenstern is a sociologist, but gives presentations on the Holocaust, so isn't reliable.
• Some newspapers aren't reliable because they are "left wing".

So is The Japan Times too leftist? Newsweek? International Business Times? Is The Daily Caller too leftist?

You still haven't answered me. Did you mean to type Jordan Peterson instead of Jared Taylor, or were you trying to make some sort of point? Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice straw man arguments. Yes, I meant to say Jared Taylor.

• Newton was extremely qualified and spoke within his field. He never purported to make claims about things he wasn't educated on.
• The problem with these articles is that they don't explain why they label Jared Taylor a supremacist. They are media articles, not studies or peer-reviewed documents.

Granted, all it is is semantics, but I believe you're using the wrong classification.

All you're doing is appealing to popularity by using an inaccurate term to demonize a person. Its like calling abortion 'murder' on its wikipedia page. This would be contextually inaccurate and motivated by political bias. You should evaluate the essence of what the word is trying to describe, and see if the word fits the essence.

I believe in this case, with Jared Taylor, the word does not accurately describe what he says or what his actions are.

Furthermore, here are some sources that call Taylor a white nationalist, if you want to play that game: Breitbart, ABC News, The Guardian, Standard, BBC, CNet, Talking Points Memo, Alabama Media,Think Progress, New York Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2018‎

This article already explains that Taylor rejects the label of white supremacist, and that's plenty. Your belief that Taylor is not a supremacist is no more definitive than my belief that he is. The way to resolve this would be with sources. Those sources I've seen describe him as one, or the other, or both, but none credibly refute either label. This includes the ones above, or at least, those that are reliable. As per previous discussions, "supremacist" is accurate and less euphemistic than "nationalist" even if both are supported. Any new sources must be reliable, and they must be directly about Taylor. If they discuss the difference between "nationalist" and "supremacist", I'm interested in reviewing them. If they just call him one instead of the other, it proves absolutely nothing, because the terms closely overlap.

Wikipedia does not expect all sources to justify every claim they make, as this is an impossible standard that no source could meet. Instead of debating personal preferences based on disputed definitions, we accept that reliable source know what they're talking about. Taylor's views on race are no more reliable than Philip Morris's PR is a reliable source for lung cancer. He's not usable or reliable at all except for his own opinion in limited cases, so why would he be considered reliable for the definition of sociological term? For this reason, I am not interested in trying to interpret Taylor's views on race to decide if he truly meets the definition of supremacist. My opinion is far from the only one that matters, also, I'm merely the one willing to humor you on this talk page. If you somehow convinced me, that would still not be consensus. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

>"This article already explains that Taylor rejects the label of white supremacist, and that's plenty."

No, it isn’t, especially when the label is false and aggrandizing his ‘immorality’, if you will.

>"As per previous discussions, "supremacist" is accurate and less euphemistic than "nationalist""

Here is the definition of white supremacist, as per Wikipedia: “White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races.”

Jared Taylor never states that white people are superior in many ways. Jared Taylor never states that white people should dominate other races. Whether he believes this or not is factually and deductively unknown, and assuming that he does would be fallacious, seeing as you’re supposed to support claims written on wikipedia with research or evidence (and not write personal assumptions or judgements about a person).

>"If they just call him one instead of the other, it proves absolutely nothing, because the terms closely overlap."

Don’t be so ridiculous. The term ‘white supremacist’ on the wikipedia page only uses sources that assert he is a white supremacist! You can’t say its O.K. to use sources that call him a ‘white supremacist’, but not O.K. to use (a greater number of) sources that call him a ‘white nationalist.’ That’s just hypocrisy, and seems to manifest your personal views on the subject.

>"He's not usable or reliable at all except for his own opinion in limited cases, so why would he be considered reliable for the definition of sociological term? For this reason, I am not interested in trying to interpret Taylor's views on race to decide if he truly meets the definition of supremacist."

Whether or not Taylor’s views are reliable is completely irrelevant towards whether or not you can classify his beliefs. It doesn’t take that much time to realize that he never said anything about the supremacy of the white race, but rather spoke a lot about the need for a whiter nation.

Here is a link: Columbia Journalism Review

In it, the writer says: “While many “white nationalists” are also “white supremacists” because they believe white people are inherently superior to other races, the terms are really not interchangeable.

Also: Pop Collab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say, not what we determine to be true. If independent reliable sources said Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. In the present case, independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist, so Wikipedia says he is a white supremacist.

If you disagree with the sources, feel free to contact them and try to convince them of your position. When those sources begin to say that he is a cheese sandwich, white communalist, segregationist, Asian supremacist, etc. then that is what Wikipedia will say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Not one single shred of evidence has been brought forth to link Jared Taylor with white supremacy. I would recommend for this reason, wikipedia implement some kind policy change. That is, it can't be enough just to cite a so called "reputable" source and ask their off-hand opinion about a subject that they themselves picked up from the mainstream media, which itself is highly biased and not very reputable.

If we were to implement wikipedia's policy rigidly and across the board, reputable sources would be allowed to get cited even if they make false claims. Surely this cannot be the proper way to go about things.

Until someone can provide substantive evidence to back up the "white supremacist" label, it needs to be promptly removed. KevinGrem (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The term and wording are well-sourced (in the lead, no less), so I'm not sure what you objection is. We won't be introducing weasel-wording, and consensus is clear that the white supremacist label applies. --Laser brain (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's ok for wikipedia to present false information, as long as the person who presents the information is deemed a reputable source? Oh this should be fun : ) KevinGrem (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And also, even if it were the case that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, it doesn't mean that it ought to be made his primary identity. Before he published American Renaissance, he was a computer programmer. It would be easy to find independent, reliable sources to back up that claim. So why not present him as a computer programmer, who, on the side, has been described as a white supremacist? KevinGrem (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And also, even if it were the case that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, it doesn't mean that it ought to be made his primary identity. Before he published American Renaissance, he was a computer programmer. The article is about what he is notable for. Taylor is not notable computer programmer, he is however a notable white supremacist. — Strongjam (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is an author with 2 degrees. American Renaissance does not publish white supremacist ideas. It speaks on white issues and advocates for white racial consciousness. Taylor has even stated that whites are not superior to east asians. What white supremacist would ever make a statement like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

American Rennaisance's raison d'être is the promotion of white supremacy. (SPLC, W. Post). As for "Taylor has even stated that whites are not superior to east asians...", cited sources have noted that white supremacists have a bit of an asian fixation. (Ny Times) So while you think it may be magnamanius for the likes of Taylor to express his <3 for "east asians", that kinda neglects the hate and denigration that supremacist heap upon Jews and African-Americans. TheValeyard (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The liberal media and the Establishment get to set the narrative and decide what is "real" and who is called what. Jared Taylor is being labeled a White supremacist because "he wanted to remove political power and social influence from non-Whites in ways that would necessarily require violence". CITATION, PLEASE?! There isn't even a mainstream media source to back this up! Jared Taylor has explicitly stated that he does not support forced removal of non-Whites. So how could supporting stopping any ADDITIONAL immigration of non-Whites into America be construed as condoning genocide? Can someone please tell me if a person in Japan supports Japan staying 98% Japanese, is that person a "Japanese supremacist"? No one will try to answer that question because they don't have an answer and they know they don't. What will the liberal deep-state Establishment do when TOO MANY PEOPLE start demanding answers to that question? I do believe that Wikipedia's extreme liberal bias wishes to slander Jared Taylor and his reputation because they know whenever someone Google's someone, the first thing they come across is his Wikipedia article and they want him immediately dismissed as a "White supremacist". 184.53.33.218 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

He's rep is based on analysis of he's rhetoric and tone about others. Like above ..plus review Barbara Perry -Professor and Associate Dean Faculty of Social Science and Humanities (2009). Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 115–117. ISBN 978-0-275-99569-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help).--Moxy (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Then, according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, can somebody explain, if Taylor is a White supremacist, then why does Donald Trump's article not explicitly call him a racist? There are loads of reliable sources (per Wikipedia standards) that call Donald Trump a racist. Trump's article does say that some of his statements were described as or considered "racist" or racially insensitive by journalists, but the article never matter-of-factly, point-blankly states "Donald Trump is a racist". 184.53.33.218 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Taylor is not a "white supremacist"

None of the sources cited say how or why Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, they merely assert it. Until some actual evidence can be provided to support this label, I think it's honestly best to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs)

What you "think" isn't at all important; what reliable sources describe the subject as, is. You made similar suggestions, and tried to edit-war your preferred version, into the article several months ago. What are you bringing to the talk page here today that is different from what you suggested in June? TheValeyard (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• How odd this post appears today.....new source just published. ..should we use it? CQ Researcher (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity. SAGE Publications. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2..--Moxy (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Saying "is an American white nationalist and white supremacist" transform an judgmental opinion into an indisputable fact. However, this opinion is disputed by several people (see the many posts here), so it certainly can't be considered as an indisputable. Something like "is often been described as an American white nationalist and white supremacist" is, on the other hand, an indisputable fact. There is no reason to revert this change. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Later in this very article: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Incidentally, I recently saw an interview with this man where he found the idea of white supremacy laughable for this very reason. Providing biased sources that make assertions does not make something a fact. The bias and logical inconsistency in this article is a disgrace. Staying anonymous lest one of the "sources" here describe me as a white supremacist. 209.122.241.80 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls read over Scientific racism.--Moxy (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that the opinions of several people determine how we present well-verified information. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional external link

There is an archived version of Mr. Taylor's personal website at https://archive.jaredtaylor.org

I can't figure out if this is the correct place to do/recommend this, but it seems a candidate for inclusion in the links section.

Gregraven (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

There is one thing that needs to be changed with this page. Jared Taylor is a White Nationalist, but not a White Supremacist. To not falsely connect these two words, I suggest that the sentences metioning his association to White supremacy be deleted.

Thank you. :) Tyffen123 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

READ ME....CLICK HERE to see term usage.--Moxy (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 not done You can read the references in the article itself, and read the archives of this talk page to find the lengthy discussion about exactly this topic, to learn about why Taylor is described as exactly what he is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussed extensively already. There is consensus to keep the current wording. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

If Taylor denies that he is a white supremacist and a racist, then you can't say so in the lede in Wikipedia's voice. You have to say that others have described him as such. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. This isn't a platform for his euphemistic public relations. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist removed from lede

[1] Seems like at least an incredibly bold edit. Where's the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. Personally, I agree with Grayfell (talk) that including both terms is redundant, and as "white nationalist" is, at best, not as specific as "white supremacist", and at worst, well-sourced as a euphemism for white supremacist anyway, then only the second term is necessary. Rockypedia (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It came about following discussion regarding Richard Spencer, where someone suggested adding "white nationalist" to water down the supremacist line, and it was noted that this article was doing that as well. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with just using 'white supremacist'. No need to pussy foot around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• No matter the lead wording ......pls do not delete sources that were the result of a RfC....pls move them and the clearly defined term to the body. We are not here to water down our coverage of reliable sources. Side note RfC here much broader then the one linked above.--Moxy (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously, I support the simpler language also. This ties into a deeper problem with Wikipedia's articles on white nationalism and white supremacy, which fail to properly indicate just how closely intertwined the two are. Sources often use the two interchangeably, so I suspect we are we reading more into the sources' word choices than the sources themselves are. That's a problem. We should not pretend Taylor's position is in some way sophisticated, or that it's more nuanced than it is. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I support this as well. I really don't see the point of using both. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would urge caution in conflating the terms "nationalist" and "supremacist" They are certainly labels that individuals and organizations self-apply, but they are also defined differently in modern scholarship on racial issues. White supremacism necessarily includes the concept of racial hierarchy and there is significant academic debate over whether that's a defining feature of nationalism. Supremacists often refer to themselves as nationalists to water down their image, but we should be sticking to what's written in reliable sources about him. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Laser brain entirely. It's unfortunate that the media get confused over these and at times take separatists who call themselves nationalists at their word, but we need to stick to what reliable sources say. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think "white supremacist" does stick to what reliable sources say. It's a subset of white nationalism, and as such, it's more specific to use that term alone. You wouldn't say "Curt Schilling is an athlete and a baseball player" even though there are reliable sources that refer to him as an athlete. Rockypedia (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that the "nationalist" label is usually used to water down white supremacy, but I think scholars generally draw a distinction here (example). While it's difficult to imagine someone being a white nationalist without also being a white supremacist, there are some white supremacists who don't endorse white nationalism, so it's a useful distinction. Nblund ^talk 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis, this might (rarely) apply, but I believe this is clearly not one of those cases. Rockypedia (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Really think those wishing to change the lead that was the result of a big RfC should hold another RfC. Not sure this small talk is more reflective of consensus then the latter talk.--Moxy (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This distinction does exist, but I think that by introducing this detail in the lede, we are subtly validating Taylor's unsupported and fringe claim that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a white supremacist. By presenting these two as different and equivalent we are implying that this distinction is more significant than it is as it applies to Taylor. Since virtually every white nationalist is a white supremacist, which of these terms better explains who he is, according to reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Then let's use both terms but not side by side.....like ..Jared Taylor is a white nationalist from.... He is the founder of the white supremacist magazine..... Both terms can easily be sourced....it's not our job to interpret what is wrong with the usage....but to simply regurgitate the sources as they appear.--Moxy (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this suggestion is actually more of a WP:OR violation than the current lead. We'd be cherry-picking one term to describe him and another to describe the magazine. The more descriptive, and more accurate term, should be used in each case. In each case, that term is "white supremacist", as "white nationalist" is the euphemism that modern white supremacists adopted in order to soften their image. That's well-supported and well-sourced, and in the end, that's what matters. Rockypedia (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In my vew cherry-picking would be using just one term when both are used by the media and academic sources in different contexts..... as described by this Washington Post article about Richard . Less is not always better when many see different meaning with the terms. This is not the page to educate people on the usage of the terms just to regurgitate and link the terms used. Link the water down term and explain how the term is watered down in that main term article. As metioned above may be best we get more involved here. --Moxy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rockypedia: "white nationalist" is a euphemism. I don't suppose it's the end of the world if we mention that term, but if so, it must be in addition to—not instead of—"white supremacist" which is the generic term according to an ample number of reliable sources. It's very important that we don't inadvertently sanitize articles by omitting "white supremacist". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and to Moxy's point - there's two reason not to use "white nationalist" in the lead. One, it's using the euphemism to further the goals of POV editors who have come here looking to soften the image of Taylor, whom they argue is not a white supremacist (a DOA assertion, as we have ample sources supporting that the fact that that's what he's notable for). Two, as in my earlier example, since white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism, we should use only the more specific term, per policy. As my example stated, we don't say "Bryce Harper is an athlete and baseball player and right fielder." We just say he's a right fielder. This article should follow the model of every other BLP. Rockypedia (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But as sourced above and at the RfC.... dictionaries defind theses terms separately....to quote Our definitions observe certain differences between these two words; white nationalist is defined as “one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation,” while white supremacist is “a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.”. Are you sure your POV is mainstream considering we have 2 clearly defined terms used in 2 different manners. As long as both are used in the article I have noproblem...one in the lead both later .-Moxy (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Even thought the Washington Post article is about someone else, it does help explain the close overlap between the terms. Is it possible for someone to "espouse white supremacy" and not be a white supremacist? This logically doesn't follow, but the current wording implies that they are distinct. It doesn't explicitly say this, but it absolutely implies it. This contradiction invites confusion, and this confusion has been intentionally taken-advantage of by some white supremacists such as Taylor and Spencer. I think it's simply clearer to use "white supremacist", because details like this don't belong in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But again we are giving our readers less information. Nationals versus supremacist ..... best we link both (does not need to be in the lead).....as it not our job to pick the term we think is right....but to mention the terms used by the sources. Let the linked term define them. if people think the terms are completely the same then proposed merging the Articles don't just abandon one and make it an orphan. --Moxy (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to argue every valid point bought up by every single editor that's of a different viewpoint than your own. You're clearly in the minority here; there's numerous valid reasons to amend the lead and several editors agree that that's the way to go. I propose this discussion be closed and the change implemented. Rockypedia (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So far zero sources presented and a big rfc say other wise Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 4#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Taylor/Archive_4#RfC_labeling_in_lede. Again call a new rfc...--Moxy (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This action isn't contrary to the RfC finding, which was a disagreement on whether to retain "is a white nationalist & supremacist" vs. watering it down with "activist". TheValeyard (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As stated many times....I have no problem with moving the term and sources to body.....but do not support delete. So far all we have is some editors say the terms are interchangeable and watered down....yet sources clearly refute this say different usage. Consider what is the best way to inform our readers.....omission or inclusion of sources.--Moxy (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are, however, the only editor who has a problem with this change. The sources can stay and white nationalist is (and will be) mentioned in the body. This discussion is simply about whether it's misleading to include "white nationalist" in the lead. Everyone thinks it is, except you. It's been two weeks and I read this discussion as overwhelming consensus to make the change. It's been long enough, consensus is clearly against you, and for you to edit war over it at this point would be contrary to every Wikipedia policy that has anything to do with the subject. Rockypedia (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as blanking of the term and sources does not happen again....I don't have a problem. I have a problem when editors with zero sources blank content that is clearly sourced and academic in nature that provides research martial for our readers. We are not here to leave readers in the dark because our anonymous editors don't like the way sources use a term.--Moxy (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, that edit you linked to was mine, and I did it because the term was already in the body, and was well-sourced there as well, albeit with some different sources than were present in the lead, which as you know, aren't required anyway per WP:SUMMARY. In an overabundance of caution in light of how controversial this BLP is, I moved the sources this time, resulting in a plethora of sources for the term in the body as of this writing. It can probably be trimmed to the best 4 or 5 at some point, although maybe it's also better to just leave them all there. I'll stay out of that debate. Rockypedia (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

White nationalism needs to be put back in lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.116 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion by SPA collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM

::::I do not think ithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Taylor&diff=next&oldid=825177842 should be changed because "White nationalist" more accurately describes his beliefs. He does not want to oppress any other races. He does not want to harm anyone. His views are highly intelligent, and none of you could beat him in a debate. I disagree that "supremacist" should be in there at all. I do not agree with or care about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. I think those "reliable sources" are biased and lying. He just argues for freedom of association. But that's my opinion. My argument towards this conversation is that it should not change because he is a nationalist, not supremacist. When he states that Blacks have a lower IQ on average than Whites, that is a statement of undeniable statistical fact. Facts aren't racist. White people are not responsible whatsoever for the failure of Blacks to succeed at the same rate, or any social problems of any minorities WHATSOEVER. 184.53.32.138 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC) A germane question I'd like to add to this convo is (without any POV), why does Wikipedia even HAVE an article for White nationalism if nobody can be labeled a White nationalist? From my POV, it more adequately describes his belief system. Is not the assertion that White nationalist is a "euphemism" for "White supremacist" an opinion and not a fact? No one of prominence (and I mean NO ONE) identifies as a "White supremacist". It isn't a real thing, IMO. Do the majority of editors wish to assert that a "White nationalist" is not a real thing? It is a real thing. White nationalists do exist, and I am one of them. So why is it that nobody can be identified as one on Wikipedia? Why not just delete the White nationalism article, if it is the opinion of the majority of editors that nobody can be labeled as such? 184.53.32.138 (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter ban and subsequent court case

Hi all, I recently included details of Taylor's decision to begin legal proceedings against Twitter - details of the edit I made can be found here, (in the final paragraph of the reception section). Ronz suggested that this information did not merit inclusion. I just wondered what other people thought? For my part, this seems like a very reasonable addition to the page, not least because it builds upon existing material in the wiki page regarding Twitter's decision to ban Taylor. The information can be attributed to a reliable source of information. Jono1011 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe with better sources. The reference is little more than an announcement that he's suing, giving basically nothing but the perspective of Taylor and his lawyer.

Consider some hypothetical situations: If the case gets thrown out, would we keep the material? Of if it's settled without terms being disclosed? What about it could be encyclopedic if there's no legal analysis? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: sources, I think the following sites could be included: 1, 2, copies of the papers that were files 3

In terms of encyclopaedic value, I think there are three points that can be made:

1. It helps to update a page which already refers to the fact that Taylor's account has been suspended by Twitter
2. I think it is noteworthy that Taylor is being represented by Marc Randazza, who also represents Andrew Anglin, publisher of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website.
3. It is noteworthy that Taylor's argument, that Twitter violated Californian law protecting free speech in public spaces, has not previously been applied to the internet.

In the event that the case gets thrown out, we can update the page accordingly, presumably taking care to include details of why it was thrown out, but the points above still standJono1011 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your second and third points don't appear to be supported by references. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The second point is supported by this reference, the third point is supported by this reference. Jono1011 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think since we mention the suspension we should mention the lawsuit. We should never use Scribd as a source, ripe with copyvio and we wouldn't use court files as sources. You've got enough reliable sources for it. As an aside, the word 'noteworthy' isn't used the way we use it here. I'd mention the fact of the lawsuit and the lawyer. And Twitter's response. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, very happy not to include the Scribd sources Jono1011 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are people happy if I update the article to reflect the changes discussed above - i.e the law suit, the lawyer and Twitter's response?Jono1011 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep it extremely brief, summarizing the main points. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your contributions. Jono1011 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed it substantially and provided the missing context of why the accounts were suspended. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

In the intro description, Jared Taylor is described as a "White Supremacist", this needs to be changed to "White Advocate" or "White Nationalist"; Jared has repeatedly denounced the term "white supremacist", and deems it misrepresenting of his views and policies. Tikkunolam123 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done -- same question, same answer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

For the wiki page on Jared Taylor, I request that the description (at the top of the page) of Jared Taylor, namely 'white supremacist' be changed to 'white nationalist'. The sources used to support this claim are biased in-and-of themselves. I believe the rhetoric Jared Taylor espouses is not supportive of the 'white supremacist' label. As he has never said that he believes white people are superior to other races, nor has he ever used any kind of pseudoscience to perpetuate any white superiority over other races. 96.49.170.116 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Request moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests to Talk:Jared Taylor — IVORK _Discuss 05:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See above at Talk:Jared Taylor#White nationalist removed from lede, the question has already been adressed. — IVORK _Discuss 05:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)