Jump to content

Talk:Richard B. Spencer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codylarson (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 8 December 2016 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

White nationalist or white supremacist?

I think it should be included in the lead that he is a white nationalist, not just white supremacist, which is often used a dysphemism, but the sources we are using identifies him as so. He is also identified as a white nationalist only. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]

White nationalist is what white supremacists call themselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that Black Nationalist (BLM) are "black supremacists"? Having an interest in the welfare of one's own race is not a racist ideology. White people exist; white people have similar concerns as any group concerning jobs, health, education and their children. Why does that seem to automatically reduce down to "white supremacy"? Nothing but reverse racism is what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:AD95:62A5:EDD2:9811 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia differentiates between the two, so that's WP:POV from you. Just no. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]
  • SPLC dscribes him as white nationalist and white separatist[1]. And mentions white supremacy twice.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)They are different in principle, but in practice the difference is barely acknowledged by most sources. The article says he's president of a white nationalist think tank, so the connection is made perfectly clear in the lede. Over-emphasizing this difference is pointless and non-neutral, and as white nationalism points out, white nationalists avoid the word supremacy because of its negative connotations. While it's preposterous to pretend that "white nationalist" doesn't have the same negative connotations, it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't use WP:EUPHEMISMs. Also, white supremacists are described by Wikipedia as a subset of white nationalists, so what's the problem with the current wording? How many layers of redundancy do we really need here? Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grayfell on this point. Many reliable sources describe him as a white supremacist. As a result, that's the more accurate description, as it's a subset of white nationalist. Rockypedia (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources didn't mean that he's a white supremacist in the sense of him adhering to a subset, the sources meant he's a white supremacist in the POV way. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]
@Connor Machiavelli:, what does "in a pov way" mean? I am never clear what you mean by that and I don't think you are. I'd also like to know when you think it's acceptable to use the term "white supremacist" as you rarely if ever agree to using it. Note please that I'd appreciate answers to both questions. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean sources define him in different ways. According to Wikipedia, I don't think he's a white supremacist of white nationalism, prove he adds ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to his ideology, then. Also WP:UNDUE. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]
I have no idea what you mean. What does "According to Wikipedia" mean? I don't understand any of the rest either. Why would I prove anything? What do social Darwinism and Nazism have to do with this? Nor do I understand why at Alt-right you want to keep in material sourced only to one poor source, while here you think WP:UNDUE can be applied to something with 3 sources. 4 soon I think, checking another one.[2] Doug Weller talk 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already says he's a white nationalist, so why different wording? "White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups within white nationalism. The former seek a separate white state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to their ideology.[4]" from white nationalism on Wikipedia. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]
Your reasoning is original research. We go by what reliable sources say, and we don't use Wikipedia as a source. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Wikipedia has the source right here, [4] http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2003/04/interviews-offer-unprecedented-look-into-the-world-and-words-of-the-new-white-nationalism-60031/ Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for sock puppetry.[reply]
No mention of Spencer there. Doug Weller talk 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that we've reached consensus on this topic, based on the fact that multiple editors have agreed that the current terminology is the most accurate one, Doug Weller and Grayfell have articulated why the current terminology is the most accurate, and the only reason this is still going on is that the only editor still arguing for a change to "white nationalist" is Connor Machiavelli, and every argument presented by him has been refuted point by point. At this point we're just stretching this argument out beyond common sense, and it's a waste of everyone's time. Rockypedia (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you must justify the "White Supremacist" label, if anything. And White Supremacist someone advocating that Whites must rule Blacks ad perpetuum. Is Richards Spencer advocating for this? Please quote him on that. --41.151.21.3 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the ongoing discussion on this very issue here: Talk:National_Policy_Institute#White_supremacist?

Cesar Tort 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." NPalgan2 Spencer does not accept the label "white supremacist". If the subject finds the distinction important, there is a hurdle to clear. And I'm not listening to a 20 minute Maddow monoologue. (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NYtimes link describes him as chairman of a white nationalist think tank. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one titled "White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites"? There is no reason to confine out interpretation of sources to the first sentence found by typing ctr+f. The substance of the article is clear.
Not liking a source doesn't make something poorly sourced. Video sources are a hassle but if you're not willing to listen to them, then it's hard to take your complaints seriously. He is known for promoting white supremacist views regardless of what he calls himself. The distinction between white supremacist and white nationalist is mostly a euphemistic word game anyway, and most sources use them interchangeably.[3][4](yes, Buzzfeed can be a reliable source)[5] etc. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer's *public* position is that he is not a "white supremacist", though those terms are commonly conflated with "white nationsalist" and "white separatist". His denial *must* be in the article, and a rebuttal given from a RS that has considered the difference and said, yeah, he is. BLP requires that contestable material be removed until consensus is reached. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So find a source where he claims he's not a white supremacist and use that to add a rebuttal, if you really must. You merely saying that he doesn't admit something about himself isn't justification for ignoring multiple reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Time article quotes his denial is already in the article. Can you at least give a time stamp for the Rachel Maddow video? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's around 2:30, where she calls him "sort of America's foremost white supremacist" among other things. If you already have a source, use it. Edit warring isn't going to work, and removing reliable sources like the Maddow clip without good cause also isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
removing BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr There are a number of in depth profiles, interviews from RSs of Spencer. They mostly tend to note his denial of the supremacist label, talk about his views, note that he hangs out with open white supremacists like KKKers (note part of the definition given in the wikipedia article for white supremacists is wanting to rule over non-whites, which Spencer publicly claims not to), and then let the reader make up their own mind. An unscriptedn designation by Rachel Maddow is not RS. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a reliable source. Just saying it's not a reliable source doesn't make it true. Unflattering things, even offensive things, are not automatically BLP violations if they are true according to reliable sources. Basing this on part of one definition of the term is either shifting the goalposts or missing the point. Sources are saying he's a white supremacist. You are free to add sources explaining his position, and that should probably be done either way, but that's not a valid reason for removing multiple reliable sources to the contrary, of which Maddow is only one example. Grayfell (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming from BLPN. It is not in keeping with NPOV to describe someone in the lead solely according to their own self-identification when there are reliable sources that give a different characterisation. It's fine to indicate what his own preferred term is, but it isn't okay to give only that term -- that's the NPOV problem in a nutshell. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*The sources you reverted were wonkette.com link, a slate article that did not explicitly call spencer a supremacist and an unscripted rachel maddow clip. to override spencer's denial there needs to be RSs. Also, WP:WEIGHT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, him espousing white supremacist ideas is what he is notable for. If he wasn't a white supremacist, we wouldn't have an article on him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added three more sources on this. It's not like they're hard to find. It's what he's known for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And on this whole "white nationalist" vs "white supremacist" crap. As Maunus says above "white nationalist" is what white supremacists call themselves. And as one of the sources I added says "white nationalism is the suit and tie version of white supremacism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:ORIGINAL. If it doesn't say directly that he is a White Supremacist, then it does not go in the article. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it DOES fucking say he is a White Supremacist! A bunch of them do! Are you really going to sit there and deny an obvious, easily checked, fact with a straight face??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of SPLC (which has its own issues with POV-pushing), what other source labels him a White Supremacist that isn't also a tabloid like Wonkette? You self-admitted that the headlines alone are good enough for you, disregarding the content. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh.... New York Times. Slate. LaCrosse Tribune. LA Times implicitly. Like I said, you're sitting there and trying to deny something which is very easily checked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the exact passages from each of these sources that says he is a 'White Supremacist' because upon further inspection of all sources provided so far, not once does Spencer identify as a 'White Supremacist' nor is he identified as one by the newspapers in question; For example, nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist.

Try again. Bring some meat to the table. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I. Already. Did. Two quotes right above. Here, again
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute
"White Supremacist: Richard Spencer"'
Other sources do the same.
Now quit wasting my fucking time by asking questions which have already been answered. It's impossible to believe you're acting in good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solntsa90: "nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist.". New York Times: "The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute". And this was pointed out already. I mean, what the hey?!?! Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't link to the story, because it wasn't a story at all: You didn't want anyone to know that it was an opinion editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/opinion/donald-trumps-alt-right-brain.html

As I said: Bring some meat to the table, not tabloids, not opinion pieces, and THEN we'll talk. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a description of a person, who's known for white supremacism, this is perfectly fine. There are also other non-opinion sources that I provided which you are ignoring [6]. "White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites" - an article about Spencer. [7]. We can keep going through all of them but it's really a waste of time, since you don't appear to be listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, The New York Times and the Associated Press are not tabloids and the articles published therein are not opinion pieces. There are no sources cited which say he is not a white supremacist, so there is no apparent dispute in reliable sources regarding his adherence to white supremacy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I would add that this is because there is absolutely no sense in which mainstream reliable sources recognize any significant difference between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy." It is a distinction without a difference, no matter how much racist groups want to attempt to create one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The New York Times and the Associated Press are not Tabloids...

Right, but the articles linked were opinion pieces.

There are no sources cited which say he is not a white supremacist

There are no sources that say you're not really a robot or axe murderer, either. Should we assume that you are one based on sources lack of sources that deny it?

Lack of evidence does not imply that someone is part of a group or ideology. Furthermore, none of those sources listed above explicitly call Spencer a 'White Supremacist'; at the most, it is inferred but never explicitly said, which isn't enough to call him a White Supremacist, and would greatly violate BLP. Famiarlise yourself with the rules: WP:BLP Solntsa90 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


"It's a distinction without a differene" Then why do you continue to POV-push for 'Supremacist', if it means the exact same thing as 'Nationalist'? Solntsa90 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid BLP, a friendly reminder that opinion pieces, tabloids and editorials are not valid sources on Richard B Spencer being a White 'Supremacist'

Just a reminder. Any source that gets posted that refers to him as a "White Supremacist", I will personally review to make sure that the source isn't an opinion piece or tabloid, and if it isn't, that it actually explicitly states that Spencer is a "White Supremacist".

So far, no such sources have passed this scrutiny, from what I can tell.

Solntsa90 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable opinion held by many notable people that he is, and as such the opinion bviously needs to be included per WP:NPOV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times isn't a tabloid. First you were denying that the sources existed. Then you were denying that the sources say what they actually say (despite the fact that the sources were quoted to you three or four times). Now you are pretending that the sources are "tabloids" or editorials. They're not. Seriously, cut this shit out. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the NYT nor the AP are opinion pieces, and they clearly describe him as a white supremacist. There is no BLP issue here; the sources are impeccable. At best you're arguing due weight, but I would suggest that NYT and AP are pretty much gold-standard sourcing. (Came here from BLPN). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Etc etc etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on a link at random, which turned out to be this one:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37433759

It's easy to make the distinction between what news media outlets refer to him as and what his own website/articles and words refer to his beliefs as. To say Richard Spencer openly promotes "white supremacist" views is a misconception, when there are ACTUAL people who do promote those views. Bulldog123 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is based upon reliable sources, and reliable sources describe him as what he is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And that's included. Bulldog123 17:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is not very clear here - there are lots of RS that support calling him a white supremacist, where are the (reliable, secondary) sources that support the description you added? Remember we are basically dealing with FRINGE material here, there's no way we should be giving his self-description (or your personal, apparently WP:OR assessment of his views) more prominence than high quality sources like the NYT. See WP:WEIGHT. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the twenty-billionth time, nobody is denying that lots of RS call him a white supremacist and nobody is removing them. It's included on the second friggin' sentence. What sources DO make clear is that he DOES NOT ESPOUSE 'WHITE SUPREMACIST" views. He's denied it on literally every single interview. There are people who DO espouse "white supremacist" views and admit it on interview. Also, tons of RS list Spencer's views as "identiarians," because he's pan-European, which is NOT PART of the ideology "White Supremacism" (Go here, here, tons of sources to back this up). Just because you don't understand the difference between the two movements (or think there isn't one) doesn't mean you can change it on here. Bulldog123 05:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources are remotely reliable. We know the purported difference between these niche racist ideologies, but as an encyclopedia article, this needs to be a clear reflection on the consensus. Reliable, neutral sources emphasize that he's known for promoting white supremacist views, regardless of whether or not he is a self-professed white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We describe people as reliable sources describe them, even if they personally disagree with those reliably-sourced descriptions. As our article states, he is primarily publicly known for promoting what a wide array of impeccable reliable sources describe as white supremacist views. We note that he disagrees with that description, but his disagreement does not trump the AP, NYT and other independent reliable sources. Moreover, your attempt to describe a link to Radix (a notorious white supremacist blog) as a "reliable source" aptly demonstrates why consensus here is clearly against you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said (by both of you) - Bulldog, there is a pretty firm consensus against your edits here, you really shouldn't still be trying to reinsert them. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above 3 users. Sources need to be reflected. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"White Supremacism" is not interchangeable with "White Nationalism" or "Identitarianism." They each have different ideologies, whether you want to "believe" that or not. This is easily sourcable. Sorry, but "consensus" from a bunch of "non-experts" on a wiki is irrelevant when every article, every interview you can find Spencer explicitly describes that he is promoting views that don't align with the ideology detailed in the White Supremacism article. If you want compromise, reword the sentence to reflect what is being "promoted" by the person versus what is being "said" about him. Two different things. Bulldog123 07:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. Your disagreement with those sources is irrelevant. This isn't a matter of "compromise," reliable sources say he's promoting white supremacism and that's the bottom line here. I suggest you self-revert your edit before you're blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...And nowhere does it even mention the word 'supremacist', let alone the phrase 'White Supremacist'. You're not being a very honest editor here, really trying hard to POV-push. You're just posting links, hoping no one will actually read or scrutinise them. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Clicking on another link at random takes me to 'The Rachel Maddow Show'. I don't think you understand what constitutes a impartial source, and suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BLP. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sourcing could be cleaned up. Reviewing the discussed sources, the only one that reliably and expressly calls Spencer a white supremacist is the AP story. The others should be removed per WP:V and WP:CITEKILL. The New York Times story comes tantalizingly close but doesn't quite make it there, in my view. (Neither of these are opinion sources, btw.) (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sources tell, if you just heard what Dr. Fleischman said, only one source reliably calls him a White Supremacist, and one single source (even if from AP) may not be enough to force a label onto someone, especially when that person denies said-label (though that is something I'm unclear of, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify how many sources you need to make a label stick). Solntsa90 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version by VM and others does not tell that "he is a white supremacist" (as the title of this section wrongly suggests). It tells he is a writer known for promoting white supremacist views, and that is exactly what all these sources imply. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword: 'Imply'. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My suggested phrasing (given agreement on cites) is "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist [insert many RS cites here], a claim Spencer denies." This is because, if the subject of a BLP repeatedly publicly claims not to believe in <whatever> the lede of the article should not say he does believe in <whatever> without explicitly (as opposed to implicitly as current wording) noting his denial. And wikipedia maintains six separate articles for white nationalism, separatism, supremacism and black nationalism, separatism, supremacists. If RSs really do agree that the two concepts "white nationalism vs supremacism" is a distinction without a difference, I invite them to propose a {{merge }. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my previous comment, as I was pinged back: We cannot state what a reliable source only implies, per our policy on original research, which says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis mine.) The AP source is reliable and calls Spencer a white supremacist. Therefore we can say he's a white supremacist. I am comfortable with the current wording. We just need to remove the references that don't verify the content (and weaken the article by causing some readers to question our neutrality). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From yet another NY Times article: "The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world." (emphasis added). How many sources do we need, exactly? Is it 6? 7? 200? Rockypedia (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece. Not reliable for this purpose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The headline of an article at Interactive One: "Roland Martin Clashes With White Supremacist Over White Angst, Donald Trump". It's an article about Martin's one-on-one with Spencer. Do you think Interactive One is an unreliable source? Rockypedia (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally take the position that headlines aren't reliable, but the body of the article says Spencer supports white supremacist views, and that's good enough for me. However I'm stumped about reputation of News One / Radio One / Interactive One for accuracy. They do seem like a large and serious news outlet, yet I haven't been able to find anything about their editorial staff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Chronicle, founded in 1841, and the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world, describes Spencer as such: "The Alt-Right - the term was first coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer". Honestly, I think the original lead skated around the issue by only saying "known for promoting white supremacist views" - there appear to be plenty of reliable sources straight-up describing him as a white supremacist, so the lead should just say that. Rockypedia (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a Bloomberg article about Milo Yiannopoulos: "Richard Spencer, a smartly dressed, University of Virginia-educated white supremacist". I've lost count now of the reliable sources describing Spencer as a white supremacist. Rockypedia (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These last two seem like good sources to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll take all of those comments under advisement, and I suppose I'll add those last two if this white-washing nonsense of removing "white supremacist" from Spencer's page continues. Rockypedia (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that Solntsa90 is the only editor (I think) claiming that WSup shouldn't be in the lead, my preferred phrasing (as I noted above) would be "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist [insert many RS cites here], a claim Spencer denies." I'd be fine with straight up calling him a "WNal, Id and Wsup" as long as we note his denial of Wsup. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost okay except for the word "claim" - WP:CLAIM details synonyms for "said" that should be avoided, and for good reason. It appears to lessen the legitimacy of the first part of the sentence, and really, the part that's less relevant on Wikipedia is what Spencer calls himself. The way he's described in secondary sources is what counts. I don't mind a sentence detailing that Spencer states that he is not a white supremacist, and instead self-identifies as an "identitarian" - which is pretty much where the lead was before all this nonsense started, and why I oppose the changes that have been attempted. Rockypedia (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "who has often been described as a white supremacist, though Spencer rejects this description." That neatly includes Spencer's denial while giving prominence to the mainstream viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. Spencer rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian."
I feel that splitting it into two sentences is important - reliable secondary sources are the key, and what a person describes themselves as (a primary source) should not be given equal weight. Rockypedia (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with Rockypedia's formulation. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are reliable sources

WP:RS WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Nbauman (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something specific you're referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted

I wanted to bring up an issue I am having with this page. Since seeing The Atlantic piece with the excerpted video of the 2016 convention, I wanted to find out more about Spencer. To be very upfront, I do not support his views. I noticed that his Wikipedia page could use a bit of TLC in terms of citations (my specialty), so I spent a bunch of time working on the citations with the intention of doing further reading on Spencer. I wanted to gather information for my own personal understanding, and have found that often fixing up Wikipedia pages, this is a mechanism that allows me to research subjects and people.
After doing this work: I am very conflicted about the end-result of the improved condition of his page as result of my efforts. On one hand, I very seriously don't want to help this man and his organizations. On the other hand, I wanted the data about Spencer to be very clear in terms of linking to a wide variety of sources, both pro and anti his efforts, to illustrate his work -- so others could easily find this data and parse it on their own. So I hope that this has been done with the spirit of Wikipedia #Neutrality in mind. But I remain conflicted, because I don't exactly feel great about learning what I have learned, and again, I don't want to support someone who preaches concepts I object to so fundamentally. I wonder if other editors have any thoughts and/or constructive ideas on this issue. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sympathies for Spencer either, but I think you should feel reassured that there's nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to writing objectively and truthfully about even your fiercest ideological enemies or people who are exceedingly far from your own values - especially on a popular source of public information like Wikipedia. If people can't even address their opponents' arguments and ideals correctly, then real discussion has been lost. BigGoyForYou (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016


Please change:

„He spent the summer of 2005 and 2006 at the Institute Vienna Circle.“

to

„He attended the Vienna International Summer University in July 2005 and in July 2006“

https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/VISU_2001_bis_2016.pdf https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/

JanMug (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That removes information about when in the years he was at the university, which does not seem like an improvement. Pppery 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new wording exactly specifies when in the years he attended the Summer School in Vienna. Richard Spencer never spent any time “at the Institute Vienna Circle“. This is important. The institute‘s director Prof. Stadler has clarified this on the Institute‘s website: https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanMug (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This doesn't seem like a contested point. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing public records per BLPPRIMARY

I have removed two sources from this article; they add nothing to the article's content and link to purported personally-identifying information such as birthdate and parents for a decidedly non-public figure, namely the article subject's father. I don't see any reason to make it easy to find Richard Spencer's father's alleged parents' names. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is also no reason to include the father's full name and the associated link. It's not encyclopedic, it's OR, there's NWP:NPF also. The Mother Jones profile mentions the father's profession and it's encyclopedic as it illustrates RBS's uppermiddle class background. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"promoting" white supremacist words

Has anyone provided a single link that proves Spencer "promotes" White Surpremacism? Every single source on the article states he promotes White nationalism, pan-Europeanism and Identitarianism. Can't find a single one that says he promotes the ideology of White Supremacism, which is not equivalent to the prior three. Until that's done, I'm removing the word "promoting" from the first sentence and will continue to do so. Bulldog123 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Do we really need yet another section on this? Presenting this one specific issue as an entirely new problem is a tissue-thin waste of time. The substance of the many cited articles, and many more besides, is that he is a proponent of white supremacism. Sources have only gotten clearer on this in recent weeks. The Washington Post agrees, the NYT agrees, his former classmates agree, the SPLC agrees, the ADL agrees, the Chronicle of Higher Education agrees, CNN agrees. These are not presenting this as a subjective opinion, they are stating it as a fact. This "some media outlets" nonsense undermines the consensus of reliable sources to advance a fringe perspective. The only reliable source saying he isn't a white supremacist is Spencer himself, and sources explicitly do not accept that he is reliable in making this overly-fussy distinction. This horse is dead. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Follow the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad Maunus agrees that we should follow the sources, so I expect him to rephrase the first sentence to do so. Yes, again because you people still don't seem to understand what the word "promote" means. I'll help:
pro·mote
prəˈmōt/Submit
verb
1.
further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
Now I've gone through all of Grayfell's sources, and can't find a single one that says "Richard Spencer's goal is to promote White Supremacy." All I see is hundreds of labels, which can and has been including in the article in the form of what it is: "Many media outlets refer to Spencer as a White Supremacist." White supremacy is a distinct ideology in modern America, distinct from White nationalism and pan-Europeanism. They are not the same, even if you'd prefer them to be. Where are the sources that claim he promotes this ideology? Bulldog123 23:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to just change the lead sentence to "Richard Spencer is an American white nationalist and white supremacist." There's plenty of non-opinion reliable sources for each of those descriptions and this wording would eliminate the word "promoting". Enough of these white-washing attempts to make Spencer more palatable to the masses. If a person doesn't want to be described as a white supremacist, he should stop publicly espousing white supremacist views. Rockypedia (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the ongoing discussion on this very issue here: Talk:National_Policy_Institute#White_supremacist?
(I should have posted this comment here instead of the identical comment above.)
Cesar Tort 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I read your commentary there. It makes one thing perfectly clear: that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works; ie you feel that an organization's description of itself takes precedence over how the organization is described by reliable secondary sources. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Once you understand that error, we can move on and have a fruitful discussion. Until then, it's a pointless exercise. Rockypedia (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Remove "known for promoting white supremacist views" from the first sentence, or provide primary source citation to support this claim. The three sources cited are secondary sources who provide no evidence in the body of their works for the validity of such a claim. Secondary source claims that either contradict primary sources, or are unsubstantiated by evidence from primary sources are invalid or fallacious. Citing the prestige or reputation of a secondary source is not a valid argument for the truthfulness of the claim. Either cite primary sources which demonstrate that Richard Spencer has actively promoted white supremacy, or edit the current text to unequivocally reflect that any allegation of white supremacy promotion is unsubstatianted by evidence; such as, "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist, alleged by many to promote white supremacist views.[2][3][4] Codylarson (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_B._Spencer&oldid=753736786"