Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)

Objectivity

This article is nothing but a description of Amren through the view of SPLC and Anti-Defamation League. No attempts at objectivity was made during the writing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.124.243 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. You can not have an objective unbiased article on the American Renaissance (magazine) by citing the SPLC and ADL. The opinions of those two organizations should be moved in to a "Criticism" sub section. --Northroad (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Our goal is to have an article which meets our WP:NPOV policy. It would be impossible in any case to have an article on something controversial without people on either side of the controversy considering it biased. There's no reason to have a criticism subsection. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Old comments

The ADL is hardly a non-biased NPOV source, I'm removing it. Volksgeist 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

External links do not need to be non-biased or NPOV, only our own writing. -Will Beback 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Would a bio about the AR be acceptable if it was hosted by StormFront.Org? I see the ADL as no better. Volksgeist 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront is a forum, so no, it would not be acceptable. See WP:RS. -Will Beback 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I have made some modifications to the article as it previously seemed to merely reiterate the POV of AR itself, without properly contextualizing it. --Betamod 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "criticism" section and some of the links to hostile entities, since the article is under no obligation to give attention to the opposition. Irvine White Nationalist

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please avoid editing articles to fit point of viewsYou very nice place 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Irvine White Nationalist" has removed links to source material that he alleges are hostile to AR, yet since they are now gone, we have only his word for it and can't decide for ourselves. Articles have no obligations but editors of articles do have obligations and one of them is to give space to contrary opinions. It is self evident that an article on just about any subject should include references to all significant controversy about the subject and clearly AR has garnered a fair amount of controversy so why can't its white nationalist supporters be honest about that? What are you afraid of "Irvine White Nationalist"?

It is NOT self edvident that an article on AR also include all references to contrary opinions. Especially when said "opinions" are only crude defamation and not reasoned argument. Please refrain from making such suggestions in future, or I shall report you. - Irvine White Nationalist 17 June 2008

It is YOUR OPINION that sources such as the SPLC and ADL are unreliable for reference in regards to AMREN; not established fact, nor is that notion something backed up by peer review. What a joke. Rock8591 (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

There is a misleading statement in the first part of the article. It says that "neo-Nazis and KKKers" were kicked out for anti-semitism. While it is true that certian persons of this type were kicked out, the sentence as written implies - falsly - that neo-nazis and kkk members don't associate (or are no longer allowed to associate) with the magazine in general. I'm going to take that out, beginning with the last comma. The refence for the rest of the sentence will remain in place. Without this edit, the article is rightly NPOV. -adropofreason

This article is a parody of itself. A left-wing exudation based on newspaper's columns of a left-wing journalist. What about mentioning the "facts and statistics derived from sometimes reputable sources, but taken out of context"? I would be curious. Centrum99 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of facts and statistics being taken out of context would be if I were to write an article about blacks being overrepresented in the military (which is statistically true) and then proceed to say that "white people are an inferior, unpatriotic bunch of pacifist wussies," something that is not true, and that the statistic does not bear out practically speaking. --rock8591 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Amren is not a magazine

Despite what the article claims, Amren is just a website, it hasn't published a magazine since January 2012 (http://www.amren.com/ar/2012/index.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.52.218 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Racism

Why is this article filled with references to racism and white separatism, but the NCF's article has few to none? Tim Long 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question was one dependent clause too long. It should have simply read, "Why is this article filled with references to racism and white separatism?" It should instead be filled with references to black and Hispanic racism and separatism.

70.23.167.160 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proxy war

“19:50, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (6,458 bytes) (deleted names that don't have their own Wikipedia articles)” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Renaissance_%28magazine%29&action=history

Since you are constantly reverting edits, and rationalizing such conduct based on a non-existent rule which I have traced back to User:Will Beback, who invented it at 22:26 on 20 June, in order to violate WP:NPOV, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comradesandalio#Notable_contributors ) you too are guilty of violating WP:NPOV, as well as WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:CIVIL, and not only engaging in edit warring, but engaging in a proxy edit war on behalf of User:Will Beback. As other editors have told User:Will Beback, so I tell you: Don’t be a dick. 70.23.167.160 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reinserting red links it's better to sit down and write articles about these people, assuming that adequate sources are available and that they meet our standards for notability, WP:BIO. Removing red links is not harassment but comments like the above may be. Please be civil and comment on the edits rather than the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you and your allies have for months been stalking me, deleting virtually every one of my edits, I would be an utter fool to waste my time writing articles for Antipedia.

Note too that your argument -- "If these people were notable then we'd have articles about them" -- is circular. According to that argument, no presently living figure who does not now have a WP entry is notable.

There is no rule that every name (or even every contributor) mentioned in a WP entry must in turn have its own WP entry. I am not going to oblige myself to follow a non-existent rule, and you have no right to invent and impose your own rules.

70.23.199.57 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of that list is "Notable contributors". If a person isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they aren't notable enough to be on the list. Also, without references or their own Wikipedia articles, there is no way to verify that the people are actually contributors to the publication. Anyone could add a random name for whatever reason. Spylab 11:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Some of the following entry applies as well to User:Will Beback.)

1. You have still not responded to my criticisms that your argument assumes a non-existent rule, is circular, and would result in no living person who presently does not have a WP entry ever having one.

2. And if you truly meant what you said, you would be reverting thousands of articles that cite people who lack WP articles of their own, something you are not doing.

3. Anyone with any familiarity with this publication will immediately recognize the names as contributors. Conversely, a reasonable person with no familiarity with the publication will say to himself, “Oh, so these are some of the heavy hitters contributing to American Renaissance.” Someone who has no familiarity with the publication has no business editing an article on it.

4. You have a history of making mischief with articles on topics about which you know nothing ( e.g., Harry Gibson, Jared Taylor).

5.“Also, without references or their own Wikipedia articles, there is no way to verify that the people are actually contributors to the publication. Anyone could add a random name for whatever reason.”

The only reason for assuming that a name is “random” would be if one were both utterly ignorant about the publication (see #3 above) AND one assumed bad faith on the part of User:Comradesandalio, who originally entered that information, and myself. But utter ignorance and assuming bad faith are both no-nos in an editor. Do you intend to justify your assumption of bad faith on the part of User:Comradesandalio? (And yet, your ignorance of the subject matter and employment of a non-existent rule make this discussion moot.)

6. Actually, a radical new method has been invented, whereby one may determine whether those people are actually contributors to the publication: Go to American Renaissance’s Web site. A second, radical new method is to google under [author] and “American Renaissance.”

But again, since you know nothing about the subject, it is incumbent for you to study it, and leave the editing to those who already have.

Thus, there is absolutely no justification for your reverts, which continue to have the character of harassment, etc. that I ascribed to them on 23:04, 25 June 2007. And so I shall continue to revert them. Please cease violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:CIVIL, engaging in edit warring, and engaging in a proxy edit war.

70.23.160.226 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paging George Orwell

1. (cur) (last) 01:02, 28 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Protected American Renaissance (magazine): IP vandalism/edit warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
2. (cur) (last) 01:02, 28 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (6,473 bytes) (IP vandalism/edit warring)

That as a proxy in a stalking campaign you have the gall to vandalize this article, lock it down, and claim that I was vandalizing it, is nothing short of obscene. 70.23.164.215 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg of the Ministry of Truth

(cur) (last) 15:38, 29 June 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (74,249 bytes) (Reverted edits by 70.23.164.215 (talk) to last revision by Eleland) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&action=history

At 05:10, 29 June, in response to [User:Jayjg]]’s participation in a stalking campaign against me, in which capacity he vandalized the American Renaissance article, I posted “Paging George Orwell (American Renaissance)” on his talk page. Ten hours and 28 minutes later, User:Jayjg vandalized my observation, sending it down the memory hole. Something tells me that he does not take his irony supplements. 70.23.164.215 04:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, it seems to me that since I last edited this article it has been systematically obscured by the removal of relevant information by people who seem to be supporters of the opinions promoted by AR. I can't say that I agree with AR's ideology but I did try to be POV neutral in my contributions. In contrast to my contributions, the more recent edits are transparently biased towards AR and anyone who reads it can tell that it's skewed. The vandals are not fooling anyone! However what I find perplexing is why they would seek to obscure AR's association with other racialist/racist/racial separatist organizations and persons unless they are ashamed of said associations. Yet if they are ashamed of beliefs they hold, then why do they hold them? That seems rather futile, as well as dishonest, cowardly and stupid. Why not have the guts to engage in an honest discourse about their beliefs, otherwise what hope do they have of convincing anyone else of their validity? --Betamod 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the title of the article

The title of this article should be "Criticism of American Renaissance" since all it does it list the criticisms of the magazine. Many Wikipedia topics have "Criticism" as a subtopic, but if you made one for this article, there wouldn't be anything left outside the subtopic. Tpellman 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A long article should have a separate section for criticism, but this article is quite short. Currently, it describes the main theme of the magazine, which is a perfectly neutral thing to do. Given that most of the notableness of this topic comes from the controversy the magazine stirs up, I think it's fair to mention criticism prominently. Franzeska 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is much shorter than it used to be. There used to be a section describing the main themes put forward by AR which seemed very pro AR POV but I edited it to be more POV neutral and linked key words to other relevant Wikipedia articles. In the latest version this has been completely removed with a few parts appended to the main body of the article, I think, as a result of recent edit wars.

Personally, I would rather just never have to read about these hysterical racists. However, I came across this article by accident and felt I should contribute to it. I find AR and its agenda quite repulsive in addition to it being based n fallacious science, theology and any other intellectual discipline they can manage to pervert to their agenda but the best way to expose them is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Wikipedia is the perfect place to give context to their fallacies and thereby expose them as such.

Of course it is also clear to me that racists and white supremacists use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate their ideas and I haver noticed that certain articles get sat on by folks with a definite POV, so we must all be vigilant but also conscientious in the means by which we combat these vandals. --Betamod 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Personally, I would rather just never have to read about these hysterical racists. However, I came across this article by accident and felt I should contribute to it. I find AR and its agenda quite repulsive in addition to it being based n fallacious science, theology and any other intellectual discipline they can manage to pervert to their agenda but the best way to expose them is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Wikipedia is the perfect place to give context to their fallacies and thereby expose them as such.

--Betamod 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"

Your criticism -- "being based n [sic] fallacious science, theology ...," is based solely on an unsupported line you took from an anonymous criticism cited in the article. Thus, your idea of scientific criticism is to engage in rumor-mongering. Had you studied the subject of this article, you would know that theology plays no role in American Renaissance. You would also know that it is the magazine's critics who are guilty of fallacious science.

Did you think that being utterly ignorant about a subject qualified one to edit an article on it?

71.249.107.254 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AMREN is not The Discovery Channel, TLC, or Animal Planet by any means, nor would it be a reliable scientific source if one were to do a study on race. If you submitted a study full of AMREN citations, your study would not pass peer review. AMREN, short for American Renaissance, IS a magazine published by the New Century Foundation, a POLITICAL thinktank that delves into race, diversity, and immigration. It would not be a stretch by any means to say that it is based on fallacious science, if any science at all. Rock8591 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ADL and WP:UNDUE

I notice that a new anon IP has added a few more unsourced statements and also more citations from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) -- most definitely not a reliable third-party source (emphasis on "third-party"). In fact, under the circumstances, I would consider it a partisan political source. Attributing a brief citation to the ADL and their view of the magazine is fine, of course. But constantly citing the ADL in such a small article borders on WP:UNDUE, especially when the reader is not always made aware in the text that it's the ADL stating these things. Unless someone can think of a good policy-oriented reason why so much should be sourced from the ADL and not reliable, neutral, third-party sources (specifically newspapers or academic articles), most (not all) of the ADL commentary should be removed, in my opinion. I don't think we're being neutral by constantly adding negative commentary from the same partisan sources. J Readings (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Widely Discredited?

While I don't personally doubt the racist nature of this magazine, I'm not sure about the line "widely discredited the magazine's content as far-right and racist in the eyes of most mainstream sources" without some sort of cite. The only media source I could find was indymedia, and I'm not really going to call them 'mainstream.' A cite from a major media player or two would be useful if this line is going to stay in the article. Random name (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's such a sweeping claim that I would surprised if a reliable source could be found for it. I tagged it as possible original research, but I agree that without a reliable source the whole sentence should be removed soon. J Readings (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what the term "widely discredited" is trying to impart is that most peer-review organizations do not support AmRen, and neither would it be considered a credible source if one were to do a research study for an institution of higher learning or whatnot. There are supporters of AmRen; however, most if not almost all are considered to be people in their own social circles. If the magazine (or anything else for that matter) is held to great weight, then there would be MANY supporters and relatively FEW detractors; here, we see the antithesis where there are MANY detractors and the ONLY supporters are AmRen themselves, people within their own social circles, their own close associates, or friends. Rock8591 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

Here, as elsewhere, your method is transparent: you delete anything that fails to cast the object of your scorn in a contemptuous light [WP:WEIGHT], remove NPOV language [WP:NPOV], and re-insert language that is laughably POV. Had I added pathetic material lambasting the subject, you would have left it in, as you have always done with other such material.

You care so little about respecting [WP’s] editorial rules and guidelines that you have repeatedly reverted stylistic, grammatical, and spelling corrections, and have re-inserted both errors and just plain lousy writing. The material I added isn’t off-topic; the subject’s responses to its critics are more on-topic than the criticisms in the article, because the criticisms were variously dishonest (the subject did not devote “some issues” to theological justifications for racial segregation) and written in inflammatory, POV language. And if you honestly believed that I violated [WP:WEIGHT], you would have re-written the passage in question, making it more succinct. I will not waste additional time doing so, because you will simply delete whatever I replace it with, just as you wasted all of the time I put into editing the article, in the first place. You clearly have a passion for wasting other people’s time and labor.

And don’t tell me I’m guilty of violating [WP:AGF], since one is not obliged to AGF in the case of someone who has repeatedly, flagrantly shown bad faith. You don’t even try to give the impression of editing in good faith, and are thus the embodiment of the POV warrior. Please cease and desist.24.90.201.232 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the ad hominems. Wikipedia is there to report on what has been said, as faithfully as possible, impartially. That doesn't mean it shouldn't call a spade a spade. What you did amounted to whitewashing reality (racialist into race realist?) And mind you, I care a lot about Wikipedias rules and guidelines, and this is why I removed the logorrheic anti-Wikipedia diatribe which you had inserted on the page. If anywhere, it should go at Criticisms of Wikipedia. It is off-topic in an article about AmRen, as it isn't about AmRen. I've tried explaining over and over in my summaries the reasons for my reverts, but it looks like you're still not convinced. If you want,you can bring this to WP:DR, such as mediation; I won't say no. However, it is highly recommended that you drop the insults first.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What ad hominems? Please prove your case.

I stand by my criticisms. "Racialist" is POV language; "race realist" is not. If you are convinced that "race realist" is also POV, then you need to come up with yet a third phrase that meets the test of NPOV. You also need to stop reinserting inaccuracies, such as the claim that "some issues" dealt with race from a theological perspective. And it is anything but off-topic for me to mention the subject's retorts to attacks on it in WP, and by the SPLC and ADL, and thereby correct the article's previous violations of [WP:NPOV] and {WP:WEIGHT]. The article still contains plenty of criticism of the subject; the way you had made it, it's title should have been changed to either "Criticisms of American Renaissance," or "Why I Hate American Renaissance."68.237.83.10 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask: Here, as elsewhere, your method is transparent: you delete anything that fails to cast the object of your scorn in a contemptuous light [WP:WEIGHT], remove NPOV language [WP:NPOV], and re-insert language that is laughably POV. Had I added pathetic material lambasting the subject, you would have left it in, as you have always done with other such material.

That's a direct ad hominem attack. "The object of my scorn?" "Laughably POV?" "Pathetic material"? You don't realize how deeply insulting you are.

And it is off-topic for you to insert a large section about AmRen's gripes with Wikipedia. This article is not about criticism of Wikipedia, it is about American Renaissance. Mentioning that AmRen has criticised Wikipedia in turn is fine, but it's not worth a whole section. Again, if you have issues with this, I'm open to mediation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've protected the page to allow editors to step back from reverting each other. Please seek consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. The phrase "Reminiscent of W.E.B. DuBois, the magazine's own page claims," violates NOR and NPOV. As to "racial realist," who uses this term, and how notable is it? I never heard of it. "Racialist" clearly applies to any separatist or supremist view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation of my objections

As I was saying, the point to which I object the most is the introduction of disparaging comments about Wikipedia in the article. While it's alright to say AmRen criticized Wikipedia, the long section is off-topic and disparaging of Wikipedia editors to boot. If you absolutely want to put it somewhere, Criticisms of Wikipedia would be the place.

Also, in the talk page of Race realism, it is mentioned that the difference between Race realism and Racialism is that the latter is usually promoting ideas of (in this case White) separatism. The founder of AmRen, Jared Taylor did promote such ideas, so I'm not sure that it's really a race realist rather than a racialist publication, if it is true to its founder's ideologies.

I am unsure about the removal of the paragraph related to the early years of the magazine, when it tried to assert some credibility among conservatives. Also, the labeling of both the ADL and the SPLC as "controversial" need attribution. Who called them that?

Also, to affirm that "just one" and not "some" (which may be very few) issues used a theological argument would need for you to have read all issues of the magazine, cover to cover.

The links AmRen has are with organizations and individuals involved in a few specific areas of controversy, usually ideologically or racially-related. I don't see the problem with being specific here.

And of, course, you're right that it's the Anti-Defamation League, and not the Ant-Defamation League.

Now, if you could pleas explain your reasoning, and try to keep this as WP:CIVIL as I've tried, maybe we have a chance of solving our differences.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More on the ADL

In the article on the ADL, can one bring sources from American Renaissance? If not, what makes the ADL more reliable than American Renaissance other than its popularity? --Comradesandalio (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other reliable sources evidently hold it to be more reliable -- similarly, academic papers gain credibility by being cited in other academic papers. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a a priori reason not to have a source from AmRen in the ADL article, if the source is about what AmRen said of ADL (as opposed to them reporting what a third party said or did), as per Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Please note that here the ADL is cited for its own opinions, not for reporting that of others. That is permissible.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ADL can be source for ADL claims that (when is relevant what they claim) but not for Somebody-who-ADL-doesn´t-like is.... Promoting ADL, SPLC... and flinging dirt at AR, VDARE... is problem of systematical bias at English Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly how these two refs are used: SPLC claims that so-and-so. The criticism around AR, VDARE, etc. only reflects the opinions that are out there: while there are supporters of these organizations, they are usually criticized by a majority of people. To present the situation otherwise would violate NPOV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing by ideological opponents (who write about pseudo-intellectuals and another attacks in the same article) in first paragraph is clearly NPOV violation. --Dezidor (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please find me the Wikipedia policy that states that. On the contrary, the position held by the SPLC on this point (about Jared Taylor) is a significant and notable one, so should be included per WP:NPOV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Their political positions could be mentioned in criticism, but is to biased to use ADL or SPLC attacks as reliable sources and give them exaggerated space and weight. It´s like to refere about Obama in opening paragraph of article about him by criticism by McCain. --Dezidor (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of political position; this is a matter of relating a widespread, notable opinion about the founder of American Renaissance.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinions (=criticism and attacks) of political critics about the founder of American Renaissance should be in their criticism. I read more articles about tradicional conservatives and I saw, that SPLC and ADL promotion is real problem of English Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better if we said that Jared Taylor describes himself as a racialist and a White separatist[1]? The character is in and of himself highly controversial and widely criticized. Wikipedia merely reports on those facts.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The link you used ([2]), for "Jared Taylor describes himself as a racialist and a White separatist," makes an unsourced, POV claim. 74.66.87.36 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim from FAIR that he calls himself a "white separatist" is completely inaccurate. In an interview on Paula Zahn Zahn Now, Paula asked him "Do you view yourself as a separatist?" to which Taylor responded "I’m not a separatist. I believe in complete freedom of association.".--XO^10 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Critics say

• Critics say that some of those who attend are neo-Nazis, white nationalists, white separatists, Ku Klux Klan members, Holocaust deniers and eugenicists (as well as numerous protestors). Weird Science

This material has been deleted twice. Could we get an explanation for why sourced criticism is being removed?   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To underscore the relevance of the issue, Jared Taylor himself has written an essay, published at VDARE, complaining about the protests: American Renaissance’s 2008 Conference: Thank You, Loonies!. Here's a piece published on AmRen's own blog by noted conservative and AmRen writer Lawrence Auster on the issue: "Guess who came to the American Renaissance conference". The issue has also been covered in the Washington Post: "Protest at a Conference on Race: Demonstrators Aiming to Disrupt Meeting Are Halted by Police". So this does appear to be relevant to the magazine, and it may even get more attention than anything else the magazine does.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Letters from readers

The article states that:

Taylor has written that the magazine welcomes Jews as writers and conference speakers... Despite this policy, American Renaissance has published letters from readers such as this, for instance:

"Sir — I read with interest Jared Taylor’s article, “Jews and American Renaissance,” in the May 2006 issue. I understand and respect his point of view, but it does not take a “blasted Nazi” to know what certain Jews and groups of Jews, using their enormous influence and power, have done to this country over the last 100 years. They played leading roles in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, and they were in the forefront of efforts to pass the Immigration Act of 1965 — the nightmarish demographic results of which we are now experiencing... I would oppose a blanket condemnation of all Jews, but we must be knowledgeable, alert and careful with regard to these people." - John W. Altman (Vol. 17, No. 7, July 2006)

It is rather disingenuous to imply AmRen is anti-semitic because it publishes negative letters about Jews from readers, considering that AmRen publishes all letters sent to them in their "Letters From Readers" section. For instance, in the March 2007 issue, in response to the Halifax incident AmRen published this letter:

Sir — Your hero Jared Taylor got what he deserved in Halifax. Keep your racist s*** out of our country. Next time he comes we’re going to cut off his head. And whoever is reading this, your head will be cut off, too. Chicken s*** Taylor. Fascist Nazis! Come on! Bring it on, you pathetic subhumans.

Billy Bob, Canada

Should we also add to the article that AmRen publishes letters supporting violence against "racists" as well?--XO^10 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation of 2010 conference

This section was written in a very biased manner, with more space devoted to the fact that Taylor appeared on the Stormfront radio program than to the issues raised by the conference shutdown. I have tried to balance it out a little bit, without removing any of the existing information.

Posted by TimMagic —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic (talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

An abridged conference was held and here is a link to videos of some of the speakers:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jewamongyou?feature=mhw4#p/u/16/RUZF1c2pTxE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.25.22 (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable contributors

• Katherine Kersten

I moved this name here from the list of notable contributors. The three citations all appear to be copied material from a newspaper, with no indication that they are even authorized. I believe what the site does is copy news items of interest, snipping them to avoid copyright violations. I see no sign that the writer has intended to contribute to the site or the magazine directly.   Will Beback  talk  13:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Dezidor (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

White supremicist

An IP editor wants the article to say, in WP voice, that the magazine is white supremicist. It's much better to have what the article currently says, which is The Anti-Defamation League describes American Renaissance as a "white supremacist journal". StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the clause "which has been described as 'virulently racist'" in the opening sentence. I reviewed the source for the "virulently racist" characterization and can't see how it merits inclusion. Here is the source. As you can see, this is a one-off remark about AR used to introduce a quote by Jared Taylor. Moreover, it's the only mention of AR and Taylor in the entire book. Context matters. Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism might be a good source for "new and exciting scholarship" on whether the so called white-supremacist movement is "gendered," but it's completely inappropriate for this article. Dmcw127 (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added references to three reliable sources. I'm not trying to have the article say anything "in WP voice," whatever that means. Do not come to my talk page accusing me of unconstructive editing for adding sources to an article. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The explanation of "WP voice" can be found at WP:YESPOV - "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources..." StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, you should be discussing your proposed change here, and seek to get consensus for your addition before putting it back in. Please do not edit war. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If this was a single idiosyncratic source which made the claim you'd be right. However, this characterization can easily be found in multiple sources.Volunteer Marek 02:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think this sentence: "has been described as "virulently racist"." should be removed. The whole point of the lede is to provide relevant and most important information about the subject matter of the article. And that's just what this, sourced, sentence does.Volunteer Marek 02:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I, of course, don't object to putting relevant and important information in the lede. However, such information ought to come from a reliable source. The quoted language, as I pointed out, was an offhand remark in an obscure book. For example, this book by Carol M. Swain actually treats the subject of this article and therefore is more appropriate. Is there any reason for us to care how Barbara Perry "described" AR? Dmcw127 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think StAnselm's latest wording is fine.Volunteer Marek 02:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't. How can you see the validity in the inclusion of these sources? Having checked each of them, one is an opinion piece that asserts the label within a couple paragraphs without providing even a slight logical scaffolding that interfaces the ideals of white supremacy and the ideals of this journal. As for the ADL piece, the ADL is unequivocally a political organization. Whether or not you agree with this mission statement is irrelevant. This is the equivalent of prefacing an introduction of American president Barack Obama with 'he has been described as a Kenyan national'. If you can't quantify your position, it shouldn't be included. Editing the entirety of wikipedia by including ADL stances would make wikipedia an arm of the ADL organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.231.181 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with IP. A good example of a "white supremacist" magazine is the The Good Citizen. The piece in The Atlantic Wire is no more reliable or useful as a source than, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism, for the reasons I discussed above (here and here). The ADL's opinion is already set forth in the body of the article, and as IP noted it provides scant foundation for its assertion. While I question the ADL's neutrality, at least the ADL source is actually a piece about AmRen. For these reasons, I would support keeping it in the article (although I don't think it belongs in the lede). This whole article needs a lot of work. It is not very encyclopedic. For example the "History" section is mostly criticism about AmRen. To avoid an edit war, I think we ought to establish some consensus about the tone and structure of this article going forward. In my view, the article is not neutral and should better reflect the general style of Wikipedia articles concerning online publications. Dmcw127 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oy, please. First, one just has to read a couple of the articles in AmRen to see that "white supremacist" is a pretty accurate description. But ok, that's a personal opinion. What's more important is that it's described as either "white supremacist", "racist", "white nationalist" or something along those lines in a ton of sources. The original IP put in three sources. But there's a lot more that could be added - it's just there's no encyclopedic need to add [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]... after the claim. One or two sources are sufficient.

Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism is a reliable source. Yes, you "discussed" it somewhere, as in made your objections and opinions known. I can "discuss" the opposite position in a couple of places and then link to these comments as if they were authoritative. So what? Likewise the Atlantic Wire is a reliable source. Same thing goes for your objection to ADL - and yes, the info does belong in the need. This isn't a journal about knitting, or motorcycles or gardening. It's a magazine which is devoted to "white supremacism". So a description of what this magazine is about really DOES NEED to be in the lede.

"neutrality" does not involve white washing or hiding information. Likewise, the analogy with "Obama is a Kenyan national" is a false analogy. No reliable non-fringe source makes that claim about Obama. Here we have reliable non-fringe sources which call AmRen "white supremacist". See the difference? Volunteer Marek 00:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am now concerned about your position as having been determined ad-hoc after 'reading a couple of articles', noting this as an 'opinion', and attempting to withdraw into objectivity do not inspire confidence in this humble reader. And, setting trends in article manipulation that raise an eyebrow aside; your condescending link regarding a basic logical fallacy is noted. Without getting too pedantic about that particular analogy; I would ask again as to why you think the sources you linking are legitimate enough to constitute a lede. You believe you are informing the public about a particular misdirect, which I view as a valid stance, but I question entirely the characterization. The sources cited submit an assertion as fact; the analogy regarding Barack Obama's citizenship was not to draw a connection to the authority in which the source was drawn, but rather the dichotomy between an assertion and fact. If you do not provide reasoning for your position, and simply take the logic shortcut of making an assertion and hoping people infer conclusions from that, you are not producing an intellectual position. As for your comparison regarding knitting and this particular article, I do not view these two examples as existing along two ideological poles. I do not support censorship and manipulation of facts, so I do not believe either case warrants unique treatment. I believe the main issue here is that the term 'white supremacist' clearly has political weight and intent; I believe that weight exists as a strawman. Similarly, I do not see how assertions are crucial to data integrity of wikipedia. There would not be a problem here if any mentioned articles gave legitimacy to the word used in terms of logical support rather than trying to tie together political concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.231.181 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Where on earth did you learn to write? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You are the person who sourced the original addition? Can I ask that you please agree to withdraw your stance? I think a separate category regarding these allegations is both relevant and called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.231.181 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of white washing. I am trying to have a constructive discussion about improving this article. I wasn't trying to imply my prior comments are authoritative. I was just trying to avoid repeating myself. My position is the article shouldn't rely on bare assertions calling AmRen "racist" or "white supremacist." The Atlantic Wire article is about National Review and a person named Robert Weissberg; Home-Grown Hate is a book about "Gender and Organized Racism." Each source makes precisely one statement about AmRen. Each statement is peripheral to the article and unsupported. Using these sources amounts to citing arbitrary instances of name-calling because ipse dixit. According to WP:RS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content."

We should be using the most reliable and comprehensive sources we can find to establish a neutral overview, not whatever errant remarks we can dig up by googling: "AmRen" + "white supremacist". Such practice is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. One possible source that I mentioned before (and will repeat here) is Carol Swain's book The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. Unlike the sources noted above, Swain provides a substantial treatment of AmRen, i.e., more than one sentence. Based on this and other reliable sources, I think AmRen can be fairly characterized as "white nationalist" or "white separatist" but white supremacist appears unfounded. I've read a couple articles in AmRen as you suggested and I don't understand why you feel "white supremacist is a pretty accurate description" or Amren is "devoted to white supremacism." White supremacy is a loaded term that connotes extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood.

As the article stands, the only information in the lead is how AmRen "has been described as a white supremacist publication." This strikes me as a rather tendentious framing for an encyclopedia entry, and I welcome more discussion on how we should proceed. Dmcw127 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the POV description and references to a new "Criticism" section. 67.6.98.234 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections are deprecated and this was already in the article, so starting a new section to duplicate it isn't helpful. I've restored it to the lead. I think the lead needs to be expanded and should include a sentence on the cancellation of conferences. The description sentence should stay although if Carol Swain says something else that could be added. It isn't up to us to decide what something is by reading its website, etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a compromise edit. I was being reasonable. You are obviously engaging in POV-pushing. Cut the crap. 67.6.98.234 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 3RR warning. This isn't pov pushing, and there's no reason the IP could not have added to the lead to make it comply more withWP:LEAD. Or go to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And I'm giving *you* a warning: You are disrupting a valid edit. Do not remove the NPOV tag. Do not reverse my legitimate, good-faith, objective edit. Don't start with your wikipedia-bureacrat threats. I know how this will eventually resolve itself. You will gather other like minded ideologues to form a "consensus" and hijack the article's POV. You are exhibiting typical wikipedia thug behavior. 67.6.98.234 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)