Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)

Ideology

The Ideology part is a pure invention and defamation. We could say the same about the ADL that it is a Jewish supremacist organization using African Americans against Whites.--109.23.159.201 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please furnish a reliable source that says that the ADL is "a Jewish supremacist organization using African Americans against Whites"? Hint - fringe racist blogs are not reliable sources, nor are your talk page comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be worked on. http://www.amren.com/about/ Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Article name is inaccurate

The article name talks about a magazine. The magazine no longer exists; the subject of the article is now a website. Somebody who knows how to fix this should fix it. Lou Sander (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC) == I'm sure that makes a huge difference. == Edruezzi (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously biased

I don't have time to edit the content under each sub-heading in this article, but surely someone could help out here. There's need for a "criticism" section, and all of the other sections need to be cleaned up removing all references to "Critics say", "Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich... say", "They have also stated that", etc.

Just look at the "Ideology" section and try to argue that this article's balanced in its approach. "The Anti-Defamation League describes American Renaissance as a "white supremacist journal"" - followed by more criticism of American Renaissance without a single reference to what AmRen say hey believe. I'd argue that there should be NO reference to what the ADL and the SPLC think of them in this section at all, but at the very least you should MENTION what their mission-goal is. The section is dedicated to their ideology, for Christ's sake! Here, read the "What We Believe" section and use this as a sourced piece describing what AmRen state they believe http://www.amren.com/about/

Absolutely ridiculous. If this isn't fixed by someone else in the next few days, I'll try to work on this over the weekend to clean the entire article up. To reiterate, it's pretty obvious this article deserves a criticism section and the current layout of the article (i.e., have a focus on criticism of AmRen in EVERY section of the article) needs to be completely reformatted to minimise all reference to the ADL, SPLC, etc. outside of this criticism section and the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Lou Sander (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Added POV tag. The article says virtually nothing about the content of the magazine/website from a neutral point of view, concentrating on opposition to it. --- Robina Fox (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The article reflects what reliable secondary sources say. That's pretty much the essence of NPOV. You're confusing NPOV with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, perhaps the problem is balance rather than bias. But it is a strikingly uninformative and unencyclopaediac article. Also, why the repetition? Robina Fox (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree this article is very WP:POV, also I restored her

but then also changed it to February. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no balance issue here. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say. Including viewpoints specifically because they differ is false balance. That isn't WP:NPOV. There is no clear complain or actionable change here, so the tag should be removed. Tags are not intended to be badges of shame, or to be used to hold articles hostage. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Grayfell, it's actually WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT to revert my edits, because I am removing material based off of WP:NOR. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the source was off. That has now been corrected. The quote was from a source that is already cited in the article. So what, exactly, is the reason this article is tagged as NPOV? What can be done to fix it? Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was supported by a WP:REFNAME. This one which was already used in the article. I understand your concerns, as I made a mistake before, but this time, it really does support the quote. You did specifically say "Find good citations if you want to keep this material" and I have done that. Please restore the quote to avoid edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That source from the post-gazette seems to quote the Intelligence Report out of nothing. That's not a reliable source. What to do is quit labeling this as KKK, on Wikipedia, it is even stated that Jared Taylor is not anti-Jewish. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I must say I support the neutrality tag. The Southern Poverty Law Center maybe isn't such a reliable source on matters like this, as noted HERE. Their statements about American Renaissance, while gathered from reliable sources, are filled with loaded language, for example "modern-day Klansmen" and "typically thug-dominated world". This stuff can be fixed, IMHO, by some rewriting. Lou Sander (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The SPLC has been discussed several times at WP:RSN. It is a reliable source for its opinions. I'm guessing that Connor Machiavelli is a bit too new to understand our policies, and I've already had to revert him from copying a big chunk of a Metapedia article into one of ours. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Doug Weller. As long as it's clear that any information from SPLC is it's opinion, it is a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The article says "Designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The New Century Foundation and its website have been designated...". It might be a little clearer, and might partially excuse some of the loaded language, if somehow it were clearer that this is the "opinion" of the SPLC. Right now, SPLC is presented as an authoritative source for hate group designations, as opposed to a somewhat contoversial source that has opinions on such things. Lou Sander (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether they are "somewhat contoversial", but they are in fact more or less an authoritative source on hate group designations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion about that, but they are less authoritative and more controversial than you think. Please see the well-sourced material HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose, you just reverted my edit. post-gazette is not a reliable source for this, as it seems they're quoting the Intelligence Report out of nothing about American Renaissance being for some sort of KKK. If the Intelligence Report actually said it, then find out they did and source that showing they actually said it, not just a claim they did. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Connor Machiavelli, there is no reason to assume Post-Gazette is quoting something "out of nothing" other than your personal opinion. Wikipedia editors have no obligation to find the source that PG used; if you think they are, please link the policy. Wikipedia is replete with examples of quotations from a source that obtains the quotation from another source. If you have evidence that PG confabulated the quote other than your own opinion, please give it to us here. Otherwise the quotation stays. There are two issues here: Is the article as a whole POV? And does the quotation come from a reliable source? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a reliable source. If you think inclusion of the quotation is POV, make your case here, but don't hide that argument behind a claim that a quotation is "out of nothing." My revert was not done to address the POV issue; it was done because you falsely claimed "Source doesn't say it". The source in fact does say it. If you want to argue that including the quotation is POV, get consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, and if I can prove it, then it's WP:NOR. Also the SPLC is considered a reliable source for whatever reason, but I agree it's not a reliable source for this article if we want a neutral article that isn't POV. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the comment immediately above means. If you can prove that Post-Gazette confabulated a quotation, then PG is not a reliable source for the quotation. SPLC is a reliable source for it's own opinions, whether in this article or any other article. All of that is an entirely separate issue of whether the article as a whole is POV. You're confusing very different issues. Determining that this article is POV requires a consensus. Please carefully read WP:CON and WP:NPOV. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about if the information is kept from Post-Gazette even if I disproved that the Intellectual Report said it, then that'd be WP:NOR. Post-Gazette contributes to WP:POV on this anyways. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you write. What do you mean "if the information is kept from Post-Gazette"? Let me try to simplify: I reverted your removal of the quotation because the quotation in fact is in the linked PG article. But if you have evidence that the PG made up the quotation from nothing, please give it to us. "Post-Gazette contributes to WP:POV on this anyways": That's your opinion, which is fine, but your opinion alone is not how things are decided here. Whether or not the article is POV is determined by consensus. Again, please read WP:CON and WP:NPOV. Sundayclose (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing on Jared Taylor in this search, if it were true it'd come up on the first page, and none of the articles have the two sentences about him being white supremacist/KKK. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC) https://www.splcenter.org/resources?keyword=is+the+cultivated%2C+cosmopolitan+face+of+white+supremacy.+He+is+the+guy+who+is+providing+the+intellectual+heft%2C+in+effect+to%2C+mod

You have made a huge logical fallacy in your conclusions. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you can't find something on one website doesn't mean it did not occur. If I tell you that the moon is made of cheese and you fail to find evidence that it is not made of cheese, it is a logical absurdity to then conclude that the moon is made of cheese. If you want to prove that the quotation was confabulated by Post-Gazette, please find a reliable source that specifically states that. Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

How could I find that out? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can because I feel confident that PG did not make up the quotation. PG is a well-respected publication with a reputation for fact-checking. In any event, since you made the claim that PG came up with the quotation "out of nothing", it is your responsibility to provide the evidence. Connor Machiavelli, a little friendly advice: if you want to make a case that the article is POV, you're going down the wrong path to try to find evidence for deception by a reputable newspaper. Find another argument for your case. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:POV tag was removed again. We have not yet reached a consensus, editors, please refrain from doing so until the decision is made. I support Ideology being worked on and it being made clear exactly what the American Renaissance, and who Jared Taylor, is, it's also important what they identify as, and that's race realist, and I support race-realist or racialist. Let's pick one for the article, and also include what they identify as. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, 2 of those are redirects you created, why would we use redirects? Just plain racism works for me, if you have a quote from them saying why they are racist that youwantto use bring it here. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since when did believing in race equate racism? Or even using evolutionary science to prove it? These questions do have answers, and I suggest you search for them, that's all I have to say to that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone with half a clue knows that "race realist" is just a code word for "racist", as used by racist themselves. It's spin and bs. Here is a source which addresses this directly in this particular context [1]. Basically "race realist" is what racists like to call themselves because it allows them to pretend that they're not complete morons. Everyone else - including reliable secondary sources, knows otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is patentedly false. One can believe in race and not be racist. Have you been to East Asia? I wouldn't call them very racist, and yet they all accept race as a scientific fact over there (or at least, most do, especially in China and Korea).

Ignoring the fact that race realism =/= racism, I'd also like to second the notion that SPLC is an inappropriate source to use on any related article to race issues, since they're an extremely biased and compromised source that has even been discredited by the FBI.

Also, googlin' sources to support whatever claim it is you wish to support doesn't work around here. Just wanted to point that out. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Solnsta90, the term Race realism should definitely be used to describe American Renaissance on this article, it even redirects to Scientific racism, I was just offering racialism as an alternative term, to contribute towards WP:NPOV. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone else who's in this discussion, or who may stop on by in the future, let's be clear here: User:Solntsa90 commenting above has decided as of late to become my own personal little stalker. This is the FIFTH article that he has followed me to in the last week or so in order to either revert me or try to stir shit up on the talk page, because of a disagreement we had on a completely different and unrelated article about two weeks ago (for which he got topic banned). All five of these articles are articles that he has *never* edited before. He is just being a WP:STALKER and a general immature creep, who's engaged in WP:HOUNDING. If I actually gave a fig, I'd report'em - and still might - but as of now I'm feeling a bit lazy (and somewhat amused) by it. But of course that doesn't mean that I - nor anyone else - should take anything they say seriously. Just ignore him and DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Conno M, no the term "race realism" should not be used to describe AmRen because 1) that is not how sources describe it and 2) it's a bullshit term which mostly only racist use and Wikipedia's not in the business of legitimizing racist double-talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific racism or racialism, and I support racialism for more of a WP:NPOV. Pick one of those two, as a consensus eventually is to be reached. If you are WP:HERE then work towards WP:NPOV, and don't promote such a biased perspective. And the article has to be sure to include what the American Renaissance's Ideology is, and what they identify as (race-realist), and that should not be ignored. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine and WP:NPOV. Show me sources and then maybe I'll "pick one". Otherwise we don't need to change anything. And WP:NPOV means representing reliable sources - which is what the article does, hence your tag is spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Marek, you sound insane, especially for your accusations of "Hounding". Perhaps you should take a break from wikipedia for a while, as you've been getting into a lot of editor disputes lately that haven't all ended very well in your favour.

Attempting to railroad me and say I have nothing to contribute due to your imaginary "hounding" is risible. I will continue to contribute to these articles as I please, and perhaps you should recuse yourself for taking this too personally. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh the evidence is right here. Five articles in about a week, which you've never edited or shown interest in before, the only connection being is that they are five articles I've edited or commented on. Because we got into an argument on the RT (TV network) article and you were so obnoxious there you got topic banned. And things are going just fine for me, thank you very much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Ignoring Marek (as I'm sure everyone does)'s little driveby ad hominem, racialism is a fine, and I'd stick with that, since that's more what American Renaissance actually is. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific racialism or simply racialism I agree on. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You guys can come up with whatever nonsense you wish, but without sources and given that one of you is clearly here to push POV and for reasons for WP:ADVOCACY and the other is here just to engage in WP:HOUNDING I somehow doubt your "agreement" is going to be worth much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here because of WP:HOUNDING, I'm here because the quality of this article (along with other articles related to the right-wing) are of genuine interest to me in terms of how we can improve.

Now speaking of WP:HOUNDING, How is it that you came to edit the article on RT News and David Irving so shortly after I have? Pot, meet kettle. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources that American Renaissance is Scientific racialism. Change it to that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have zero disagreement with this edit, and would support it. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be wise to wait for other editors to see if they agree on that designation of Scientific racialism, but it's also not really important to wait, so you could go ahead if you wish. I've been recommended to leave the article alone for a little while until we can reach consensus, but I believe what we've agreed upon would work fine. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a very good reason for using a redirect we should always use the real name of the article in question. So definitely no to Scientific racialism, Race realist etc. Racism works fine until we find independent reliable sources that are convincing. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally vouch for the term to be racialism, since that's what AmRen is, not necessarily racist (That is to say: they believe in a biological basis for racism, but that they don't necessarily subscribe to racist beliefs, i.e, racialism). Solntsa90 (talk)

Racialism for sure, that is different from racism. Wikipedia should remain neutral even on right-wing articles. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you posting in this section? In any case, we don't have 'neutral' articles, we have articles that follow our WP:NPOV policy. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because I agree with Solntsa90, and they're correct. Also, I meant WP:NPOV by 'neutral'. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Who shouldn't have posted in a section I started about his/her claim about the FBI, so I've moved it into the appropriate section. Specifically what part of WP:NPOV requires us to use racialism and not racism? Doug Weller talk 12:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic comment on the SPLC and the FBI

I note that an editor has made the false claim that the SPLC has been discredited by the FBI. The FBI's webpage "Hate Crimes—Overview"[2] says "The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others." This page[3] calls it an outreach partner and has a link to the SPLC website. It's easy to search the FBI website, dragging up old out-dated events which were misrepresented (it was simply dropped from this page[4] which now doesn't mention any groups) is misleading at best. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

In Ideology, we have "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." repeated. That is not their own views. Things like these should be kept in a Reception or Criticism section. Putting it in Ideology is WP:POV. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I get tired of harping on this, but here goes, again: An organization or individual's definition of themselves is a primary source. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources for information in articles, when they're available, and in this case, they're plentiful and readily available. End of story. Rockypedia (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the quote, and believe it belongs, and ideology is as good a place as any. The quote is currently included in both sections, however, which is unnecessarily repetitive. It's also improperly sourced. It should be to <ref name="post-gazette.com"> instead of <ref name="differences"> There are two quotes attributed to Intelligence Report, but the "cultivated" one is from a Post Gazette article which interviews the magazine's editor, not the magazine itself. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Designation as a hate group by the SPLC

There are no proper citations supporting the claims in this section. Unless some are provided, I propose to delete it. I'll wait a day or two for editors to fix things.

Specifically, reference 12 is a list of "Active White Nationalist Groups", not "Hate Groups". Reference 3 is a rant about writers, and mentions American Renaissance only as a place where some of their writings have appeared. Reference 11 is a general reference that does not support the claims made. Lou Sander (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply search the SPLC site to fix reference 12? I've removed the text not backed by a source, and fixed the rest - new url for reference 11 and a new source for the first quote. Of course, you could have done that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Plain-speaking answer: I didn't search the SPLC site because HERE. Also because I'm not in favor of name-calling, especially the IMHO verging-on-hate-speech variety that calls people "klansmen". I hope I don't have a responsibility to dig through what I feel and think are offensive sources to track down citations for that sort of thing. Lou Sander (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the SPLC isn't a good excuse for not doing due diligence. And I see no name-calling. "Klansmen" is mentioned in the sentence " He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." And modern-days Klansmen (and women) exist, eg [] He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen. Look, I can show them to you - a picture of some of them last year.[5]. No name-calling there. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I hope you aren't saying that I have a responsibility to dig through what I feel and think are offensive sources to track down citations. (I could have, perhaps, said "drink from the SPLC cesspool" instead of "dig through offensive sources", but that would be using loaded language, or maybe even, indirectly, name-calling. IMHO, encyclopedias are better if they stay away from peacock words and other loaded language.) I think I did the right thing by inviting others to do something distasteful (to me) that I was unwilling to do myself. Lou Sander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that wasn't a peacock word, unless you think Klansmen are a figment of someone's imagination. Sadly anyone who edits articles about racist organisations such as this one has to dig through cesspools sometimes. As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. You get to choose which articles you edit. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course you could have read the comment above yours first which explained the problem and helped me fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what comment you mean. Lou Sander (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell's which mentions that there were two sources. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It takes a pretty close reading of that whole section to see that it applies to weak sources for the quotation it discusses (which it sort of does, of course). I love Wikipedia, and I think I'm pretty diligent about what I do here, but I've only got so much time for it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

More Southern Poverty Law Center

Now that its citations are in order, IMHO the SPLC subsection's name should be changed just to "Southern Poverty Law Center", which would be more indicative of its contents (which are not just "hate group" stuff), and to make it parallel with its following subsections such as "Anti-Defamation League". Lou Sander (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Done

I have wrestled with reference #13, "differences", and made the following changes: 1) made the citation point directly to the article, rather than to the main page of the publication; 2) Corrected the title of the article; 3) Added material to complete the thought expressed in the reference.

The claim to which the reference refers still appears in two places, very close together in the article. The first is in the Ideology section. The second is in the Southern Poverty Law Center subsection, a mere three short paragraphs later. The Ideology section is extremely weak, consisting only of this claim and one unreferenced other. The claim and its reference apply most directly to SPLC. IMHO they should be removed from the Ideology section ( Done), which should then be deleted or beefed up, depending on the views and skills of the editors with an interest in the topic. There is a lot more to this magazine's ideology than is expressed in the present section. Lou Sander (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have missed my comment above, so I will copy and paste it again to make sure you see it: An organization or individual's definition of themselves (or their ideology) is a primary source. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources for information in articles, when they're available, and in this case, they're plentiful and readily available. Rockypedia (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We all know about using secondary sources. Primary sources may be used, for example, to state an organization's claims about its ideology. Commenting on those claims is not allowed. See WP:PRIMARY for details. I don't think that secondary sources about AmRen's ideology are very plentiful at all (as opposed to sources that merely characterize AmRen in disparaging terms). If handled properly, the latter are OK to use in sections like Reception and Controversy. Lou Sander (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says nothing about "Primary sources may be used to state an organization's claims about its ideology." You just made that up.

For your second claim - So if a secondary source characterizes AmRen in terms that you find disparaging, it's not a source? Because that's basically what you just said. Sorry, you don't get to create Wikipedia policy on this talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please settle down. I had assumed you could read what is in WP:PRIMARY and see how it might apply to examples not explicitly stated there. Also, we are all trying to improve the article here -- please stop scolding me. I regard it as a borderline personal attack. Lou Sander (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh heavens no, I'm not scolding you. I'm not personally attacking you. And telling me to settle down in an attempt to portray yourself as the calm voice of reason - that's funny. I'm simply calling you out for cherry-picking, wiki-lawyering, and acting surprised and offended when people tell you that you're doing these things. You're not trying to improve the article - every single one of your edits is designed with the goal of sanitizing the article by removing or playing down references to white supremacism and/or racist ideologies, while attempting to twist wikipedia rules into some shape that you think will help you achieve those goals. I don't know what your true motivation is and I don't care. Sources say what they say, and that's what stays in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Lead and the sources

Lou Sander (talk) left a note on my talk page saying "Washington Post and Fortune magazine claims in the lead are not supported in the body of the article." I'll be adding more detail in the body, but meanwhile, I asked to move this discussion to here, as I felt it would get more editors involved than if it were on my talk page. I have an issue with the word "claims", as I feel the two sources he mentioned are well-established as reliable, and they're certainly not the only two that describe AmRen as a white supremacist publication. I'm also not sure if Lou's problem is that the body of this Wikipedia article doesn't include the white supremacist description, or if the articles on the websites are what he feels do not support that description. Rockypedia (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Claims" refers to the material in the article; claims need to be supported by appropriate "references" or "citations" from reliable sources. Nobody is questioning the reliability of your sources. It's just that the intro needs to summarize material (the claims) that appears in the body of the article. You added references to the intro that weren't even mentioned in the article. Also, it isn't a good thing, when stating claims, to merely say that "X calls Y an idiot". You need to give us some context from the Washington Post and Fortune articles, supporting why they say X is Y, not just that they characterized X as Y. See WP:CHERRYPICKING. Lou Sander (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you're cherry-picking from WP:CHERRYPICKING. From the very first sentence: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says" - none of those sources include contradictory or qualifying info that would change anything; in fact, those sources clearly state what AmRen and Jared Taylor are: white nationalist, white supremacist, racist. I don't see how you could possible misinterpret any of that. Care to elaborate? Rockypedia (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

I have added some ideology to the article, as stated by American Renaissance themselves. I believe I have rigorously complied with the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. Lou Sander (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sort of. You missed the part that says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The statement of ideology is a direct quote, and presented as such, so that part seems okay, although I'm not sure Wikipedia should be a billboard for the ideology of every group that has an article. I'd like to see some other editors weigh in on that.

Including that tidbit about Jefferson, however, isn't significant enough on its own to merit a mention in the article; is it significant every time a website quotes a Founding Father? If it isn't (I would argue that it isn't) then it feels like you're interpreting it yourself to try to add some kind of gravitas to the magazine, and that's WP:OR. So, while you've made a bold addition, I'm reverting that part of it, because I don't feel it's significant that they quote TJ all over the website, and I find no secondary sources that make mention of it. Rockypedia (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete properly sourced material without discussing it here first. Give us your justification and see if anybody buys it. What you think isn't very significant unless there is some consensus about it. If you have something positive to contribute to the Ideology section, it would be great to see it. Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You adding that material is the BOLD part of WP:CYCLE. I reverted it because it's trivial and you'd have to use WP:OR to justify including it. That's the REVERT part of WP:CYCLE. Now we're in the discussion part (see below). I'd appreciate if you'd knock off the doubletalk and stop trying to protray me as the guy breaking rules, when in fact it's you doing the rule breaking, which, given your long history, you are surely aware that is what you're doing. Rockypedia (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The way it's presented is WP:UNDUE. The quote should be shortened to its essentials and incorporated into text, rather than presented as a block quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, every word of the quote is essential as it relates to American Renaissance's Ideology. I wouldn't disagree with incorporating it in the text, but I'd like to know why you think the other way is WP:UNDUE. Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The bit about TJ is trivial, looks both cherry picked and OR to call it ideology. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so trivial, IMHO, though I can do without it. It is their motto, so to speak. It balances, to some extent, the endless accusations of white supremacy, etc. Do you doubt that they mean it as an expression of their ideology? I don't. BTW, I am starting to have some concern that editors here are more interested in demeaning AmRen than they are in presenting an encyclopedic article about them. I see very little effort toward the latter. Lou Sander (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh here we go. Now it's accuse the editors time. Guess what, Lou - if a one-man website publishes a bunch of articles that advocate white supremacism, white nationalism, and racism, in varying degrees, and the man running the website advocates the same, and hosts conferences inviting other white supremacists to speak, then should he be surprised when CNN, the NYT, Slate, etc. describe him and his website as white supremacist? If you consider "white supremacist" a demeaning label, then maybe you should ask yourself why you're so hell-bent on removing that label from a white supremacist website.

No one here is interested in demeaning AmRen. Most of us are interested in the Wikipedia page about AmRen reflecting what reliable sources say about AmRen. And for the last time, what AmRen says about itself is not a reliable secondary source. Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, people label AmRen racist, and AmRen identifies as race-realist. So, according to sources and definitions, they'd qualify to being described as a "scientific racist magazine". Connor Machiavelli (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, that makes them sound as though they are scientific. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:POV though, that'd be WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. That is what we define race-realist as on Wikipedia. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Still more Southern Poverty Law Center

The second paragraph of the SPLC subsection is exclusively about Jared Taylor. It doesn't mention AmRen. Therefore IMHO it really doesn't belong here. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He's the founder and editor - it's basically his creation and baby. It would be relevant even if it didn't mention AmRen, but of course "an American Renaissance conference" is a mention. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, AmRen is basically a one-man operation, and that one man is Jared Taylor. Rockypedia (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm referring to the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, which doesn't mention AmRen at all, and therefore maybe doesn't fit an article about AmRen. You seem to be referring to the Post-Gazette article the subject paragraph uses as a reference. That reference is basically a highly critical opinion column about Taylor. Of course the P-G article mentions AmRen several times, but only in the context of to Taylor's association with it. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I don't think you are right about "one-man operation". If this article were about Taylor, BLP rules would apply, and that claim would have to be carefully justified. In fact, I think that the paragraph in question, if it remains, brings a bit of BLP into the article about AmRen. The bottom line is that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." IMHO, that includes talk pages such as this one. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying IMHO, which makes me wonder, when you don't say it, does that mean it's your dishonest opinion? Rockypedia (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, maybe strike that comment? I say IMHO at times. Yes, BLP applies everywhere, here and in the article. But I don't see any violations of BLP. Of course, if you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN. Taylor may not be the only person involved in AmRen but it is his creation and he is definitely its face, see this page from its website[http://www.amren.com/archives/interviews-appearances/] which doesn't mention anyone else. And how do you help AmRen? Get interviews for Taylor.[http://www.amren.com/about/activists/] Taylor and AmRen are inextricably linked - its his main way of promoting his views. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I agree 100% with your characterization of Taylor. I also agree 100% with your invitation to Rockypedia to strike his disparaging comments (both about me and about "one-man operation"). The latter is certainly not very egregious, but it isn't true, and it isn't referenced. It seems to represent one editor's not-so-well founded opinion about a living person. Like you, I am trying to improve this article. I am neutral / agnostic about AmRen's merits. I just think that a paragraph solely about Taylor, that is based on a takedown article about him, doesn't really belong in a section about SPLC's reception and controversy over AmRen. I hope that other editors can see where I'm coming from. Lou Sander (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact he does have an assistant, Henry Wolff. And then there's "AR Staff"[http://www.amren.com/author/arstaff/][http://www.amren.com/news/2015/05/prospects-for-black-america/] which is odd and suggests to me that must mean Taylor or Wolff. Your "takedown" is my "critical", and again I think a discussion of the founder, editor and main spokesman for AmRen is relevant. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope all of us would agree that there is a significant difference between a "one-man-show" and an outfit with more than one person, even if it's only two or three. It is analogous to the difference between a one man band and a duet or string trio. Also, I can certainly imagine that "AR Staff" might include people who don't want their names publicly revealed. Sort of like user names in the computer world.

I agree that a discussion of Jared Taylor is relevant in the AmRen article. My objection, which I hope I have clearly stated, but which doesn't seem to be getting across, is to including a single paragraph of such discussion under SPLC. Taylor has his own Wikipedia article, and as I understand things, it would be a common practice to excerpt it for a section in the AmRen article. Lou Sander (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

New source

See[6]. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Good find! It is all excerpted from The Myth of Race, by Robert W. Sussman, described in fair depth HERE and HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Conferences

An editor has removed the citation pointing to the list of conferences on the AmRen website. That citation provides verifiability, and seems to be well within the strict limitations of WP:PRIMARY. To maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, I believe it should be restored. I agree with the removal of the additional material about availability of reprints and videos.

An editor also changed the dates and numbering of the conferences, (I believe incorrectly), without providing any sources. This might have come from reading the Cancellation of Conferences section without checking its references, which are flawed. From all appearances, the 2011 conference was not cancelled. The reference to its cancellation is a dead link. I'm guessing that it was an honest mistake to say that 2011 was cancelled; it is easy to confuse one year with another. Lou Sander (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

So, "described as a white supremacist publication by several sources, including The Washington Post, Fortune, and the Anti-Defamation League. It is published by the New Century Foundation, which describes itself as a "race-realist, white advocacy organization". It has also been described as "alt-right" by The Guardian." I suppose that means "is a white supremacist publication"? A handful of reliable sources seem to say it is. Or, if you somehow like this word salad, maybe we should rewrite this, "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only object in the Universe known to harbor life", realizing scientific consensus, the epistemological uncertainty of inductive reasoning, and the need to represent opinions from all sides? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Apropos deleting "Notable contributors and speakers"

@Grayfell - Looking at this article's history one can see that the sources given were considered reliable for more than the last five years.
It can of course not be expected that every appearance of a speaker is mentioned in the main stream media -- thus to indirectly claim that the previously given resources are not any longer reliable and demand others simply means the demand to not include information about conference speakers at all –- which you know of course -- and I'm sure that you do not really doubt that those mentioned actually spoke there, do you?
Why not just honestly give the reason that the one who deleted the information gave in the first place:
"... and we should not be using them as a source for all the Huge Big Stars!"
For years providing this information was deemed OK, and now it's considered propaganda? That's unworthy. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Things change, and people notice things that slipped through the cracks in the past. This information is not encyclopedically significant unless it's supported as such by a reliable source. In this case, that also means an independent source, since American Renaissance is not, and really never has been, a reliable source. It is barely usable for routine details about the publication itself, but these are not routine details.

"Unworthy"? Name-dropping without a reliable, independent source is promotional. That's outside of Wikipedia's scope. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been right there in the open for years -- and not "slipped through a crack". And it is without doubt a major difference whether a source is used for claims made concerning controversial topics by that very source or for simply providing information who attended a conference. And again -- I'm sure that when looking at the source you do not actually doubt that the speakers were there, do you? Do you actually believe it's all fake? Images, DVDs etc.? All made up? Of course not. That's just common sense and the information has not been hidden i.e. "slipped through". 93.224.109.244 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's fake, nor do I particularly care why it was originally added, but I do think that American Renaissance is unreliable for establishing due weight. Not every factoid that is verifiable belongs in an article, and Wikipedia is not a directory. American Renaissance has, obviously, a goal of promoting their publications and events, and name-dropping notable contributors is consistent with that goal. If this is truly encyclopedically significant, it should be possible to establish this through reliable, independent sources. The walled garden of academic white supremacists is quite small and intertwined, making this list neither remarkable, nor particularly informative by itself. Minor organizations and publishers, no matter the topic, do not automatically list every notable contributor without a specific reason. That reason must be established by reliable sources, not PR. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Summa summarum -- the truth of the fact that the speakers were there is not questioned, and the reader of the Wikipedia may learn that "American Renaissance" held conferences but not know the speakers anyway -- except for David Duke.
You say a reason MUST be established -- I don't think so -- and for the last five years it was obviously not considered a problem by others, too. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Don Black and David Duke are supported by multiple reliable sources. Sources were accepted, likely because they were ignored, and now they are not being ignored. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

More likely it was not considered obligatory to establish a reason for stating an accepted truth. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Edit warring?! For re-adding information that has been included in the article for years and deleted without discussion in the first place. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.109.244 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The content was removed by one editor, you restored it, and it was removed again by a second editor, and you restored it again. We are having a discussion about it, so let's finish the discussion.

Not all accepted truths about American Renaissance belong in the article about American Renaissance. The way we establish due weight is with reliable, independent sources. This is standard for all articles about organizations and businesses. As an imperfect example, few other articles about magazines established in 1990 list contributors in this way. For those that do, we could discuss that on their talk pages if we felt it was inappropriate, and we could discuss that at any time, regardless of how long the list had been there. Many of those article are pretty bad, and include a lot of puffery and promotional filler, and I bet a lot of it has been there for years. This isn't a justification for adding that kind of thing here, of course. Likewise, content is not grandfathered-in, nor are Wikipedia editors obligated to honor precedent without looking at the bigger picture. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Greyfell is absolutely correct. Material in any article that fails our policies and guidelines may be removed no matter how long it's been there and should not be restored. Doug Weller talk 07:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Renaissance (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204075622/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/29/2018426/white-nationalist-leader-to-discuss.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/29/2018426/white-nationalist-leader-to-discuss.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heavy POV, weasels etc.

And e.g. guilt by association:

have attended American Renaissance conferences and have been seen talking with Taylor...

Many e.g. US politicians willingly met with despots, murderers and worse. They shook hands and discussed policies and provided weapons. So? Argumentum ad hitlerum. Zezen (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"Supremacy" is Inaccurate

I think we need a higher standard when using effectively-pejorative socially-disqualifying terms such as "white supremacist" and for politically charged topics such as this. At least, the standard should be very high for the first-sentence summary. From everything I've come across, Jared Taylor consistently argues against the concept of supremacy; he points out evidence of differences across races and of large-scale social and material consequences of differences, and he highlights the persistence of and advocates for the legitimacy of racial preference within a framework of freedom of association (and politically determined immigration policies). For many people, his own preference seems to be too close to "supremacy" for them to recognize the distinction. But I think this article's authors should be careful to be accurate and nuanced with such a politically and socially charged issue. In fact, I think the term "white supremacist" is particularly inaccurate because, if the term "supremacy" can be used at all, more appropriate terms would be "Asian supremacist", or more finely, "Jewish supremacist", since the data that AmRen presents nearly always puts Asians and Jews in what some people assume to be the "superior" end of the spectrum, with "Whites" or "Caucasians" in the middle of the spectrum.

What are the standards used when dealing with the most volatile topics? When words are used not to communicate precise information but to shunt people's minds into common pathways of "acceptable" and "unacceptable"? When words are used as political weapons? (For example, if I find many quotes from mainstream media that claim that Julian Assange is "guilty of treason", should I lead the article on Julian Assange by labeling him "treasonist" in the first sentence?) I think this topic is extremely important to be precise on because perpetual misunderstanding and miscommunication can lead to mounting tension and conflict and ever more drastic political reactions.

Zeroparallax (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)