Talk:Richard B. Spencer: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 6) (bot |
→Concerning entry to Poland: retraction |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
== Concerning entry to Poland == |
== Concerning entry to Poland == |
||
An editor is persistently removing information related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_B._Spencer&diff=885965360&oldid=885900325 this diff]. I’ve had a look at the source and it probably could do with better wording, but I doubt that wholesale removal of the source and its related text is due. Can someone please look at the edit, as I am at 1r today and there are DS on this page? (something which has been made clear to the reverting editor who has now exceeded this limit) [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
An editor is persistently removing information related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_B._Spencer&diff=885965360&oldid=885900325 this diff]. I’ve had a look at the source and it probably could do with better wording, but I doubt that wholesale removal of the source and its related text is due. Can someone please look at the edit, as I am at 1r today and there are DS on this page? (something which has been made clear to the reverting editor <s>who has now exceeded this limit<s>) [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:15, 4 March 2019
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Caption..
Beyond My Ken I am perfectly aware the MOS isn't mandatory. That doesn't give you license to impose your preferences over (so far) the objections of 3 users and common practice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- IAR gives me that precisely that license. Redundant information is redundant. The article titlte is "Richard B. Spencer", the infobox title is "Richard B. Spencer", what purpose, exactly does identifying the image as Spencer have? None, none at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would not lean on IAR much when it comes to edit warring against three other editors and status quo. I would agree that, if that caption were simply his full name, it would be redundant (although I have seen similar in other articles). However, just the year, and especially in parentheses, is very odd to my eyes. I think the current version represents best practice across Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could use a more descriptive caption like
"Spencer speaking at the 2016 National Policy Institute conference in Washington, D.C."
- MrX 🖋 13:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would not lean on IAR much when it comes to edit warring against three other editors and status quo. I would agree that, if that caption were simply his full name, it would be redundant (although I have seen similar in other articles). However, just the year, and especially in parentheses, is very odd to my eyes. I think the current version represents best practice across Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could use a more descriptive caption like
I'm going to leave a note here indicating my support for changing this infobox caption and all infobox captions to "(Date)" and not "(Name) in (date)" for the reasons stated in WP:YOUDONTSAY (and stated again by BMK above). Leviv ich 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I changed it to "At the Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, D.C., on November 19, 2016". Leviv ich 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
MLK day?
Should this deletion be supported?
If a white supremacist makes some public action on a notable public holiday, such as Martin Luther King Day, then that's significant and should be recorded here.
We shouldn't assume their motivation unless supported by WP:RS, but the simple fact of the date - that's justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Weirdly, Wikipedia's original research policy makes "because I said so" a non-starter for sourcing claims. --Calton | Talk 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Where is the OR? The date is sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- This can be sourced through [1] Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ooh, great. Now his defenders can re-run that "SPLC is just non-RS Libtards" thread again. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I originally rejected this deletion from an IP editor (through the Review Changes process), but Calton reverted my rejection and then I suffered his typically sarcastic and somewhat abusive messages to me, even when I tried to explain my rationale for rejecting the deletion. I believe the deletion should not stand, but do not need to re-read Calton's arguments, as I well understand his position because he provided four OP-ED articles about John Birch Society all based on the same WaPo writer that had nothing to do with Spencer. Vertium When all is said and done 12:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- It does appear that there are a couple other sources that mention the date coincided with MLK day, but I don't really see the point in mentioning Spencer's trollish timing. It's not like we need additional evidence that he is a racist. Nblund talk 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think we do Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Spencer is quoted as calling King a "fraud and a degenerate", so I'm really not sure anyone who isn't already persuaded by that point is going to be persuaded by this implicit dig at his legacy. Some outlets who covered the launch briefly mentioned that it coincided with MLK day, but others didn't. So it doesn't seem essential. If our goal is to inform people that Spencer is hostile toward King or civil rights in general, why not just point to his explicit statements? Nblund talk 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The date being MLK Day appears to be trivia and does not need to be mentioned. It's not like anybody is confused about Spencer's ideology. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Facts do need to be mentioned whether someone already knows them or not. I'd suggest that what some consider trivial, others consider meaningful, especially when they further inform a reader as to just how someone is communicating their ideaology. Vertium When all is said and done 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Concerning entry to Poland
An editor is persistently removing information related to this diff. I’ve had a look at the source and it probably could do with better wording, but I doubt that wholesale removal of the source and its related text is due. Can someone please look at the edit, as I am at 1r today and there are DS on this page? (something which has been made clear to the reverting editor who has now exceeded this limit) Edaham (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Montana articles
- Low-importance Montana articles
- WikiProject Montana articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Massachusetts articles
- Unknown-importance Massachusetts articles
- WikiProject Massachusetts articles
- C-Class Texas articles
- Low-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press