Talk:Richard B. Spencer

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Agreed. Follow the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll allow a 2-day waiting period for anyone to find a source that states Spencer "promotes" the ideology of "white supremacy." (No, a headline referring to him as a "white supremacist" is not the same thing) If a source is found, please add it to the main page and I will no longer edit the first sentence. However, if no sources of the like are found, I will revert to a more accurate version twice a day on a daily basis until it is adjusted properly. Happy hunting. Bulldog123 09:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Declaring that you'll slow-mo edit-war against editorial consensus is a ticket to being topic-banned as an Arbitration Enforcement action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to report me. The facts are on my side. You have ZERO sources saying he "promotes" white supremacism. I asked for one. You instead just turned it into an ad hominem attack. Bulldog123 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

See [1],[2], [3]. If you have problems with all three of those, we can go with my proposal below, which eliminates the word "promotes." Feel free to start the discussion yourself. Rockypedia (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the slo-mo edit-war threat, there's a simple fix to this. As there's a number of reliable sources that refer to Spencer as a white supremacist, I propose the lead sentence be adjusted to say "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist." I'd be happy to partake in a discussion based around making this change before doing so. Rockypedia (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence does not need to have his views or others views on his actions at all. Instead it could highlight his profession. The discussion of whether or not he promotes white supremacy could be highlighted in an entire section regarding his public life and his agendas that have led to him being viewed as a "neo-nazi", "white-supremacist", and "white nationalist". Again, this is not necessary to be in the first line as a fact, but more of a clear outline of what leads many "reputable sources" to think that this is his stance or position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.193.71 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

•  Not done -- an edit request of this sort is implemented only when there is consensus for it, and in reality the consensus evident on this talk page goes in the other direction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the consensus on this page follows fallacious argumentation. Asserting the truth of a claim because of consensus is invalid. Consensus is of limited value only with respect to opinion. The truth of a claim is independent of how many persons assert it. Facts are supported by objective, verifiable evidence. If Richard Spencer has made statements which promote white supremacy, primary source material will exist to support this claim. Until primary source material is presented, these claims remain allegations, and should be clearly identified as such. Let it be a point of common purpose here that content be edited for greater clarity and objectivity, not to establish a comfortable, if erroneous, consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codylarson (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation Link

The claim that there's a "link" between the Heritage Foundation and the National Policy Institute, based on "reporting" by an opinion broadcaster, Rachel Maddow, is yet another example of why Wikipedia is untrustworthy on any controversial topic. For starters, Maddow isn't a reliable source. Secondly, her broadcast cited gave no evidence whatsoever for a "link" between the two groups. There was no "reporting" in the clip, only an unfounded assertion. Yes, Wikikids, there's a difference. Really.

This is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to smear the Heritage Foundation, which has no ties to neo-Nazis. The tipoff is the use of a content-free and highly tendentious "report" from a far left-wing talking head to justify a claim backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Now, having been through Wikiwars before, I won't stick around for this one. Wikipedia is fine for non-controversial stuff that we used to find in the World Book encyclopedia, but the politically-motivated roving flash mobs here just cannot resist their temptations, and will naturally support each other. So you will keep the unfounded, ax-grinding claim in the article, to the ongoing detriment of Wikipedia. Have fun, kids. And no, I didn't contribute to their fundraiser. 73.239.55.87 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll never understand the need some have to point out that they didn't/won't contribute money. What kind of garbage encyclopedia would this be if that was a deciding factor in editing decisions? If that's not the point, then why even bring it up at all? Anyway, the connection could definitely be explained more clearly, but it is supportable by many sources. Maddow is a pundit and also a reporter, like it or not, but the connection between the two through Richwine's 2010 AlternativeRight articles (he left Heritage Foundation three years later) has been documented by multiple other sources. The reference currently used is not Maddow directly, but another source commenting on Maddow's story. Other sites commenting on this include RawStory, SPLC, Washington Post, Slate, and the conservative Washington Examiner. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's "supportable by many sources," then cite them. Rachel Maddow is hardly even close to neutral, and the program cited as a source didn't even support the allegation except to make it. This is tendentious garbage of the kind that has gotten Wikipedia banned as a source in universities around the world. 73.239.55.87 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the Maddow's reliability--I'm sure there's something about it at WP:RSN--but I agree that referring to an unspecified "link" between NPI and the Heritage Foundation report is weasely and uninformative. This "link" is reliably documented, so we should describe it. So I did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Views 4th Paragraph

In the views section in the fourth paragraph it states that an individual was disinvited from an event and another individual was a guest speaker, but it appears there is no actual mention of what event one spoke at or what event one was disinvited from. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.15.115 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Please change every instance of "white supermacist" to "white nationalist" as it does not represent his views and it would be presenting a wrong image to the viewer. AR4P2020 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

How he describes his own views is beside the point. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AR4P2020 did not say anything about how Spencer describes his views. Rather, he's saying that Spencer is more aptly described as a white nationalist than as a white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalnumber7 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Steven Bannon is chief strategist, not chief of staff.

Chief of Staff is Priebus. Article needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalnumber7 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Take out ", known for promoting white supremacist views" Dogisrain (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"known for promoting white supremacist views" is untrue and the author/wikipedia may be held libel is s court of law.

Not done: Well supported by references. Also see Wikipedia's policy on legal threats EvergreenFir (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Punch

Is the punch on the day of Trump's inauguration really significant?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

#Nazi was trending on Twitter the night it happened with over 100k tweets with Spencer as the subject (saw it myself, no ref), that's a lot of tweets (in case you didn't know), see RichardSpencer Nazi on Twitter for more sources, info. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw it on TV here in Australia. Which is why I came to this page, to find out who he is. Yes, it's newsworthy and tweetable, but is it significant enough to be mentioned here?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The punch was needlessly mentioned twice, once each in two different sections of the article. I removed both mentions. The punch does not belong in a section on "controversies", because there is no controversy associated with it. No one is disputing that it happened, and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted. Nor does it belong in a section on Spencer's career, as the fact that he was assaulted does not form part of his career. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"and there is no evidence that there is a dispute over whether it was or was not a good thing that Spencer was assaulted" - there sort of is. See this New York Times article: Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose one can make a case for including the information somewhere in the article on that basis. One mention is quite enough, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not so sure myself whether this is really WP:DUE, but if it is included (I'll let others decide), one mention is enough for sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be the most important reason that he is famous, but that would make him a one-hit wonder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

("One-hit wonder", that's good.) I don't think the "controversy" section is ideal, because if we include free-speech advocates, "some commentators welcoming the attack and others deploring it" applies to almost everything he's done. This is why WP:CSECTIONs rarely work well. If we changed that section title to "activities" almost nothing would be different. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Combine "Career" and "Controversy" into "Activities"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. How does this look? Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to eliminate the subsections because they don't fit in chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On another issue, what is the source for it being an impromptu interview and for the fact that several masked men came up? I can only see one.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can see it's an impromptu interview, but feel free to change "impromptu interview" to "interview" if you actually consider the point important. Changed multiple men to one man. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure what was being conveyed by "impromptu"... Here is a source from the news service that was interviewing him at the time, if anyone's interested:[4] He was actually punched twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Man or person

Relating to the same topic, I have reverted twice the change from "man" to "person" in describing the attacker. The sources clearly say man. The ABC account based on eyewitness Zoe Daniel also says man.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

"He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture."

Requesting citation for these quotes. Basgta519 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done these are already sourced in the "Views" section - The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, and should not, normally, include citations - although this article seems to break this guideline - Arjayay (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleansing

Can be cited from here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.9 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ski club incident

I'm inclined to think that including the ski club incident is undue weight. He wasn't expelled from the club, charged, sued, or anything like that. There was some coverage, but one of the main sources we are relying on is by Spencer himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that current sourcing does not support notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Spencer says that the incident had no significance!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's bloated and should be trimmed. It's useful context for the later events in Whitefish, but perhaps not useful enough based on sources. Also, if it's supported by multiple news outlets, surely we can find something better than Radix, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We could simply say: "A dispute at a ski club in Whitefish, Montana, which was covered widely in the American press, increased local public awareness of Spencer, that he and his work were at least partially based in Whitefish some of the year. This resulted in rallies and local anti-racist efforts against Spencer and his company." This would greatly reduce the verbiage, and I think make the issue more understandable.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

' A dispute at a ski club in Whitefish, Montana, which was covered widely in the American press,' it was mentioned on Rachel Maddow and Daily Beast, but that isn't 'widely covered'. And your suggestion sounds like SYNTH, linking the ski club dispute to later protests (I mean you're probably right, but is there an RS saying so?) NPalgan2 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is the phrase in bold. The other text is already in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Then i'll change it. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've condensed the paragraph to one sentence which I think reflects the source. I hope this is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017: Adding a citation

I would like to add a citation on the quote in the summary:

He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[citation needed]

Here is the source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ JoeyS7 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist vs white supremacist vs both

The current first sentence says that Spencer is a white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. Isn't this redundant and confusing? White nationalism says that white supremacy is a subset of white nationalism. So if he's known for promoting white supremacist views, why not just say he's a white supremacist? Sorry for being late to the party, but I don't see a prior discussion on this particular topic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There was objection to stating that a person promoting white supremacist views was a white supremacist. I'd support describing him plainly as a white supremacist in the lede if you'd like to change it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you access archived talk conversations? There isn't a link NPalgan2 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, here was previous consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer/Archive_1#To_avoid_BLP.2C_a_friendly_reminder_that_opinion_pieces.2C_tabloids_and_editorials_are_not_valid_sources_on_Richard_B_Spencer_being_a_White_.27Supremacist.27 Searching today on google news for 'Richard spencer white supremacist' gets 90k hits, 'Richard Spencer white nationalist' gets 360k hits and the media outlets on the first page are more likely to be ones that wikipedia uses as reliable sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It'd think this means nothing if "white supremacist" is indeed a subset of "white nationalist." You need to find sources that say that Spencer is not a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are sources that avoid explicitly calling Spencer WS while calling him WN - note especially the discussion in the last http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-inauguration-white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched-on-live-tv-during-abc-interview-20170120-gtvyqe.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-confronted-protestors-texas-appearance/story?id=44061233 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/world/americas/white-nationalism-explained.html NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. We need sources that say he's not a white supremacist, not sources that don't say he's a white supremacist. A subtle but hugely important distinction. And the ABC News source strongly supports the contention that he is in fact a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources above clearly decline to make the extra step of saying RS is WS. They say he is WN, they may quote people arguing he is WS or that WS=WN, but the reporters and editors made the final decision to call him WN and leave the judgment up to the reader. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Obvious BLP issues, but I still think this simplification is worth considering. "Clearly decline" implies that they specifically announce that they are not going to call him a white supremacist. I don't think it's that clear. We have sources calling him a white supremacist, and we also have sources calling him a white nationalist. Even sympathetic sources agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. Since the punch incident, there's been a noticeable shift in how sources describe him, as well. Previously cautious sources now seem comfortable just calling him a neo-Nazi. That's not going to work here, but it does highlight how silly it is to get bogged-down in Spencer's self-serving word games. At some point we have to draw the line and admit that "is known for promoting white supremacist views" is stilted and euphemistic. It means exactly the same thing as "is a white supremacist", doesn't it? Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP is supposed to be a bit cautious. "Since the punch incident, there's been a noticeable shift in how sources describe him, as well." Since the punch was only a few days ago, I think we should wait to see if media description of him really has changed. ""Clearly decline" implies that they specifically announce that they are not going to call him a white supremacist." No - specifically \neq clearly. When I google site:nytimes.com richard spencer it's clear that they generally say 'white nationalist Richard B. Spencer' not 'white supremacist Richard B. Spencer. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but a google count is original research. Yeah, okay, so was my Nazi comment, but my point was not that we should call him a Nazi, rather that we should focus on the substance of the sources as a whole, which rarely, if ever, emphasize the supposed distinction between white nationalist and white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I just gave three RS articles about Spencer which spent time discussing it. Current wording in the lead follows weight of RSs by calling him WN while noting that WS is often used to describe Spencer, though the wording is awkward. Other NYT articles that use WN: Richard B. Spencer, a well-known far-right activist https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html 3 days ago the white nationalist leader Richard B. Spencer www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html Dec 12, 2016

The white nationalist Richard Spencer https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html Dec 20, 2016 Richard Spencer, a white nationalist in Montana, said Mr. Trump was “ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/politics/donald-trump-white-identity.html Jul 13, 2016 NPalgan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, as NPalgan2 suggest. We follow our verifiability policy, which means we call a spade a spade. Multiple reliable sources say Spencer is a white supremacist, and we've found no reliable sources saying he's not a white supremacist. That should settle the matter. In fact it does, since we have consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not what BLP policy says - "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere *strictly* to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" You're basically saying that if we have 1) sources saying that something is A, 2) sources saying something is hyper-A, and 3) sources saying something is A but quoting people who say it is hyper-A then we should say 'This thing is hyper-A'. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Back to the topic of this section: here's 3 examples of RS talking about Spencer promoting white supremacist views [5],[6], [7]. As I said in an earlier discussion (scroll up on this page), if you don't like the verbiage, we can just go with "white supremacist" as well. I feel that's just as accurate given the numerous sources available and I would be fine with that too. Rockypedia (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should use prefer to use better sources like NYT/LAT/WSJ/LATimes NPalgan2 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We can use all reliable sources in combination with each other. Point is, there's plenty of sources to support "promotes white supremacist views" or "white supremacist." Either would work in the lead. But eliminating that phrase is clearly not an accurate option. Rockypedia (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give NYT equal weight to livetradingnews.com and irishexaminer.com I'm not arguing in favor of eliminating 'WS'. Current phrasing is good. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those NYT sources say he's not a supremacist, nor do they even imply it convincingly. Fixating on the NYT is missing the point. We're not trying to count-up the scores of a ball game, we're trying to convey the substance of why he's notable. We also have many reliable sources just saying "racist". That's also accurate, but imprecise. White supremacist is, according to multiple sources, accurate. So is it precise enough to be more informative? CNN: Video posted online by the outlet shows the white supremacist speaking to... The article later comments on Spencer's denial of being a supremacist, and dismisses it with a counterpoint from his own words: Spencer denied being a white supremacist in a December 2016 interview with Ganim. But, in that interview he said, "Only white people can support what we call Western civilization." He also has said there should be a "peaceful ethnic cleansing," meaning individuals not of European descent should voluntarily leave the United States. CNN directly contrasted his self-description with his stated beliefs. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The simplified wording [8] is an improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Can someone with more technical knowledge of talk pages please add links to the talk page archives? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Thanks - will the header have to be updated manually when the archives get large enough to be two pages? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope! It's all automatic. That's one reason I prefer {{talk header}} to the archive boxes from the old days. That and it looks nicer and is easier for mobile users. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, would you mind changing the archiving to the standard automatic scheme, rather than one click archiving? I just noticed that a discussion that was started on January 21 was then one click archived 16 minutes later. Granted, it was a pretty weak discussion topic, but that shouldn't have happened. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: The auto archiving is in place. The one-click archiving is done my any individual with the OneClickArchiver script in their common.js file. In other words, CFCF did that manually and independently from the archiving bot. If you want to revert the archiving, I think that's kosher. IMHO, just reverting or {{hat}}/{{hab}}-ing the original IP edit instead of archiving it would have been better. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. As for reverting, it seems like water under the bridge to me. I just hope CFCF doesn't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I should just have deleted it per WP:FORUM. That however would have taken 3 clicks instead of one. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you should have left it because it was arguably suggesting a change to our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolve edit war

The starter has come under dispute in the wake of a recent David Pakman interview. Can it be resolved? --Volvlogia (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that. What is the dispute? Rockypedia (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the edit history, I think Volvlogia wants the first sentence to call Spencer an identitarian, sourced to a YouTube video. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move: Richard Spencer (white supremacist)

The title of this article isn't consistent with our naming policies and guidelines, which suggest that we should move this article to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). The vast majority of reliable independent sources refer to Spencer as Richard Spencer, not Richard B. Spencer, and then we have to disambiguate him from the many other notable Richard Spencers. I would be bold and make the move myself but I'd like to achieve consensus first due to the controversial nature of the proposed title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. I wasn't aware of the naming conventions, but in light of that, seems like the right move. Rockypedia (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not all sources call him a white supremacist; some refer to him as alt-right activist, white nationalist activist or a number of other labels. There's also the fact that he denies it. Given that the WS label is extremely contentious for obvious reasons, I don't think we should be using that in the page title. In addition, there are only a handful of articles that use (white supremacist) in the title, and those are people that have embraced that label. However, there are a huge number of pages of all sorts of fringe activists that use the disambig title (activist), so I think that if it does need to be moved (which I'm uncertain of, but not enough to form an opinion) then Richard Spencer (activist) would be the more neutral term. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but most do, hence the lead sentence. That said, I'm a bit on the fence about the proposed move. Neutrality and BLP are concerns, though I think we have enough sources to support the proposed move. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer (activist) is not an accurate descriptor. Rockypedia (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it not? He runs a think tank, publisher, website and podcast with the aim of promoting his political ideology. Sounds like an activist to me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Find a bunch of reliable sources that describe him first and foremost as an activist and then you'd have an argument. Unless that exists (which it doesn't) the "activist" label in the article title is completely inappropriate. Rockypedia (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Activist" is easily verifiable, man. "An assault on Richard B. Spencer, a well-known far-right activist," [9]. JRBx45x (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede that most do, sure. However, calling someone a white supremacist is probably one of the most odious labels in the English language, and extreme care should be taken when using it in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not contesting the use of it in the lede, since it is well sourced there, but I think directly applying the term in the title is too much. This is especially true when we have a completely neutral disambig term available which is accurate, precise and has far, far more precedent. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have similar concerns (though the shoe does fit). I'm curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer (activist) is confusing since there are multiple Richard Spencers who are politicians. If we can't get consensus to use Richard Spencer (white supremacist) then Richard Spencer (white nationalist) seems second-best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, current article title is in accordance with policy WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use... Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" The current title Richard B. Spencer has been or is mostly used by many RSs - The Atlantic, Chronicle of Higher Education, The Guardian, Newsweek, NYT, CNN, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Links please. The most relevant guideline is WP:INITS, which is specifically about whether to include a subject's middle initial. If the majority of independent sources use the "B.," then I'll withdraw my proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:INITS says "*Generally*, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". Generally, not always. The disambiguation policy discusses when other considerations come into play: "...commonly used in English (even without being the most common term)". Richard Spencer probably is used more often than Richard B. Spencer, but Richard B. Spencer is often used in RSs and the subject himself often uses it. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so unless I've misunderstood something you haven't explained why you think we should break from the general rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use... Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" We have a good natural disambiguation there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should use a middle initial whenever there's a disambiguation issue? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In general, and if the middle initial form is commonly used by RSs and the subject, sure. I'm saying that we have two forms of Spencer's name in common use - Richard Spender and the current article title Richard B. Spencer. The former is ambiguousvbut the latter is not. As wikipedia policy says natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, we shouldn't change the title to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). NPalgan2 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If a parenthetical disambiguation is contentious, then sure. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Simply because Richard B. Spencer sounds neutral/NPOV and we would be opening a can of worms if we did the suggested move. No doubt he would use it to self-victimize, and we don't want to encourage him. Let's try to keep this article as NPOV as possible--I know that's hard, but within reason. (By the same token, shouldn't "white supremacist" in the lede be in quotation marks instead of being in the voice of Wikipedia?) There is also the slight chance that he may change his mind and no longer hold these heinous views later in life, but his name won't ever change.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There's consensus in the discussion above that he's a white supremacist, so I don't think neutrality is a problem. And frankly how the subject reacts shouldn't be our concern. That sort of argument is really a slippery slope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I just think it is more encyclopedic to be completely neutral, especially with such bizarre topics. (Also because the definition of "white" is meaningless unless one is a racist; there is zero difference between us no matter how we look, so a false sense of supremacy is a delusion and cannot be put in the voice of Wikipedia. We would be normalizing the construct.)Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrittanyPBone: I have reverted your unilateral (and obviously premature) page move. Please join the discussion here and wait for a consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Though the original discussion was that moving it to "Richard Spenser (activist)" didn't have enough sources describing him at such. Now that more several reliable sources have been added describing him as an activist, this seems to be the appropriate title.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record this discussion also seems to be less than 24 hours old, so I don't see a 'longstanding consensus'; we need to take the new sources into account now and come up with a solution.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and archives before jumping into a dispute; there is a longstanding consensus that "white supremacist" is the appropriate opening descriptor for this person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying, I won't war with you but I don't think you should just delete sources out of the blue like that. I put the sources I had added on my sandbox, some might not be the best so you are free to look over them and determine which ones are not reliable, a few might be duplicates of the same source on different websites:

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

references
References

Re: DrFleischman - Fair enough, I think the sources above should still be added to the opening paragraph describing him as a "far-right activist" rather than deleted from the article entirely. As for the title of the article itself I will let that play out.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We should focus on the topic at hand, which is whether the article should be moved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would accept a move to Richard Spencer (white nationalist). This is almost universally accepted by sources, including Spencer, and is sufficient to differentiate him from other people with the same name. "Activist" would be insufficient for that. Richard Spencer (white supremacist) would be okay as well, I guess, but titles do not allow for context, so I think I would prefer the former. In the event he recants his views, the article name can and should be changed again. Zigzig20s' raises some very good points about normalizing racial constructs, but we're limited to what sources say. If there's a reliable source which discusses Richard Spencer and white identity as a cultural construct, I would love to see it. Sources I've seen pretty clearly link him to the ideology without that awareness, however. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Richard Spencer (white supremacist). That's how sources describe him. --Tataral (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose For every source that describe Spencer as a white supremacist there are two to three that refer to him as a "white nationalist," a term he himself uses and doesn't oppose. This move would be highly partisan. JRBx45x (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "White supremacist" is a loaded term. I prefer "activist" or "white nationalist" if this becomes a problem in the future. Isn't he the only Richard Spencer on Wikipedia that we know has B. as a middle initial? He does use his middle initial in his domain name and Twitter name so this article can easily be found and identified as him. Thus no real need to change the article title right now.

A "[race] supremacist" descriptor could broadly be applied to other people which some here I think would object to. For example, Steve Harvey and his recent joke about Asian men. Yes, some people thought that was racist. Riley Cohen (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A clear misunderstanding of policy. Reliable sources don't call Steve Harvey a racial supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Richard Spencer (white nationalist)

Does anyone object to a move to Richard Spencer (white nationalist), and if so, please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I argued above that the current article name is the correct one, following WP:INITS and WP:NCDAB read in concert but you didn't really respond. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you, I just had nothing to say in response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd object to that, as it's well-documented by reliable sources that "white nationalist" serves as a "brand-friendly" euphemism for white supremacist, and that would be the object of this name change. So no, I would not support such a move, in the interest of not white-washing what Richard Spencer does for a living, which is to promote white supremacy. Rockypedia (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be false. Wikipedia makes a distinction between nationalism and supremacy. We have separate, well-referenced articles on White nationalism and White supremacy, and they establish that they are separate, though often related. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That's sort of a problem with those two articles. The former one in particular has some problems.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See [10] for the numerous sources explaining how "white nationalist" is a sanitized version of "white supremacist" Rockypedia (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support I still think the current title is perfectly fine, and would prefer (activist) as a second choice, but this proposal is reasonable. It is accurate, precise, one of the labels commonly used by sources, and the subject himself embraces that label, so that would resolve my objection on BLP grounds. If consensus forms above that it does need to be moved, and activist is not precise enough, I would support this more strongly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Look, I'm sorry to sound a one note horn over and over again, but wikipedia policy is to prefer a title without parentheses to one with parentheses if there is a suitable, unambiguous one in common use, even if it may not be the most common. Richard B. Spencer is in common use by the subject and RSs and it's unambiguous. No one has explained why this line of argument is wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an accurate description per sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The (white separatist) proposal above isn't closed; if you have an opinion on it could you please share it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Richard Spencer (white nationalist). Sources, and even the article's opening sentence, describe him as a white supremacist, so that's the description that should be in the title. --Tataral (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Twice as many sources refer to him as a white nationalist. You can't really pick which one you think suits him better. JRBx45x (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't need a description in the title. The current title conforms with wikipedia policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per NPalgan2; there's no need to have a fight over the article title when the current title is perfectly fine. We're wasting enough digital ink arguing over the first line of the article as it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Put me in this camp as well - current title is fine, there is no one really complaining about it, and it's a reasonable compromise given the other (much more contentious) options above. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support - As somebody who's written a lot about hate groups in their job, I can assure you that "white nationalism" and "white supremacism" are two separate movement that often but heads and in-fight. To conflate the two because of the ignorance of certain low-level journalists is a huge disservice to BOTH truth and verifiability. JRBx45x (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all great. Unfortunately, "somebody who's written a lot about hate groups in their job" is not considered a WP:RS. If you can find reliable sources that state what you just stated, that's a different story. Rockypedia (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It takes less than 10 seconds for you to find this. All you have to do is look. There's a reason white supremacism and white nationalism are separate articles and don't re-direct to one another. https://books.google.com/books?id=H2KXPhIUMlcC&pg=PT141&dq=White+separatism+and+white+supremacism+are+subgroups+within+white+nationalism.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiwJHn-OrRAhWErlQKHUZVCn0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=White%20separatism%20and%20white%20supremacism%20are%20subgroups%20within%20white%20nationalism.&f=false]. JRBx45x (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That books is published by "Cram101 Textbook Reviews" and includes a direct copy/paste of the lead of Wikipedia. Beyond being unreliable and WP:CIRC, the source also supports that white supremacism is a subgroup of white nationalism. They are not separate movements in the slightest, one is, at most, a subset of the other. They are also used euphemistically to normalize and imply greater ideological diversity than exists. This is supported by Wikipedia's articles, and many reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

JRBx45x, as someone who's written a lot about hate groups in their job, you oughtta know better than to take everything you read on the Internet at face value. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support And I strongly support not calling him a "white supremacist" though I don't think that will gain "consensus". It was only recently changed to that. Not even David Duke is called a "white supremacist" (yet). I wouldn't be surprised if an RFC gains consensus to change all mentions of "white nationalist". Riley Cohen (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Japan wants to restrict refugees.[11]

Some Jews want to have their own country (Israel).

Some Europeans want to restrict refugees.[12]

Some Whites (Richard Spencer) want to have their own country.

You do not have to be a racial supremacist to support any of these things. You do not even have to be a part of the race/group (see Christian Zionism). X nationalist is a better way to describe those that do. Riley Cohen (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is just factually head-in-the-sand wrong. Spencer has said a lot more than just expressing a desire for white people to have their own county. Jesus, just read our article or the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose we close this discussion. The only two "support" editors are recently-created accounts and looking at [13] and [14], their flurry of recent activity has been mostly concentrated on this talk page. They're both apparently very comfortable with Wiki procedures and terminology despite their recent appearance on the site, and if they're not sock puppets of some other account, I'll eat my keyboard. Rockypedia (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. No one can contend there's consensus for the proposed move. But, if you really want a close you can request one at WP:ANRFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Black Genocide

Richard's alt right magazine/website has put forth the questions on whether we need the black race and whether black genocide should be completed, via archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right It further delves into what would be the easiest way to dispose of them etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.9 (talk) 14:40 27 January 2017‎

I don't think we should be putting anything in our article from Spencer or NPI unless it's received coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I just don't think we should be in the business of promoting that sort of content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

recent assault on Spencer

A lot of media is covering this. I found out about it via SNL. While the incident itself probably isn't notable, it seems like the reaction is. Also seems to be speculation about identity if masked assailant. Ranze (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article. And any speculation about an alleged assailant should definitely not be in the article per WP:BLP. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit: Spencer is moving his Virginia base of operations from Arlington to Alexandria

Links:

The ‘alt-right’ arrives in Alexandria http://alextimes.com/2017/01/the-alt-right-arrives-in-alexandria/

Richard Spencer's 'One-Stop Shop' for the Alt-Right - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-one-stop-shop-for-the-alt-right/512921/

For one Alexandria neighborhood, the 'alt-right' is all wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

Thanks. 152.180.6.2 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

The first line calls Richard Spencer "a noted American white supremacist". Each of the "citations" of this claim link to websites that state that Richard claims not to be a white supremacist, while the website refers to him a white supremacist anyway without presenting sufficient evidence to support their claim. Several people have called him a white supremacist, but that doesn't make it so. Please change the text from "white supremacist" to "political activist" or even to "political activist who has been called a white supremacist, but claims not to be." or something along those lines. The original citations can remain. 74.199.66.41 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist, neo-Nazi and political activist would be best. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling him a neo-Nazi is misleading and offensive, I agree with the rest though. In the video where he got punched during Trump's inauguration he says that he isn't a neo-Nazi shortly before it happens. Then fake news sites helped spread the "It's okay to punch a Nazi" meme. Riley Cohen (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This was discussed extensively above in the section titled "White nationalist vs white supremacist vs both" and the consensus was that "white supremacist" was appropriate. There are numerous reliable sources calling Spencer a white supremacist, and none that dispute that label. Spencer himself is not a reliable source. His viewpoint is noteworthy, but doesn't change the fact that he is verifiability a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer, jack Donovan and homosexuality

Acording to this source http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/08/now-even-white-nationalists-want-gay-friends/ it refer his stance on homosexuality.

It speaks about how he barred matthew heimbach since he was too anti-homosexual.

"Richard Spencer is president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute and according to SPLC has made overtures to the LGBTQ community. He’s considered one of the founders of the Alt Right, and last year barred homophobes from attending their annual convention, choosing pro-LGBTQ speakers and turning away at least one antigay speaker."

There is even a source inside that links to SPLC about this to be reliable source. BLP violation or not? 83.209.66.168 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's just that one mention referring to one statement on SPLC, I'd say it's not significant. However, if there's more significant coverage of his stance in reliable sources, then sure, I'd go ahead and add it. Rockypedia (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of mention. Not a BLP vio. You only need one reliable source, and LGBTQ Nation appears to pass that threshold based it being fairly widely cited by other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Alleged clear consensus?

Where is this supposed "clear consensus" that the header should ONLY say "white supremacist" and leave out "white nationalist?" I count 4 "opposes" to calling Spencer a "white nationalist" and 3 supports. How is that a "clear consensus?" Not even Jared Taylor has the header "white supremacist" and he has an equal amount of sources that call him one. JRBx45x (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. There's a "weak support" from one legitimate editor, and 2 "supports" from accounts that are likely sock puppets; if not of themselves, then certainly of someone else. As for your vote count, see WP:NOTVOTE. The arguments put forth in discussion matter, not the number of "votes". The editors that support leaving the page as is have presented cogent arguments citing Wikipedia policy as their basis. Your arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other editors have pointed out the major logic flaws in them. So yes, there's clear consensus that the header is most accurate as it is. If you want to elevate the issue higher, feel free to do so. Rockypedia (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to elevate the issue higher. Any suggestions for where I can open this up to outside influence instead of the clear cabal brewing here? I'm not sure what "nice try" means but it sounds intensely partisan. There's a countless amount of sources that describe Spencer as a "white nationalist." Why these should be ignored just because you and a couple of other people "feel like it" doesn't really feel WP:NEUTRAL. If this was a common standard, articles like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, et. cetera should also be listed as "White supremacists" because news articles referred to them as such. Why are they not? JRBx45x (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that describe Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow as white supremacists, then you should change their pages to reflect that. Why wait for someone else? Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why should I? I can easily weight the amount of sources that call those two "white nationalists" versus the few that call them supremacists and merely make a reference to it in the article. I don't need to prove a WP:POINT by putting it in the heading line. That's not what's going on in this article. JRBx45x (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: White Supremacist vs White Nationalist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting a "request for comment" on this issue. Question is whether Richard B. Spencer should be referred to exclusively as a "white supremacist," exclusively as a "white nationalist," or as both a "white nationalist" and a "white supremacist" in the first line of the article. One opinion is that Spencer should ONLY be referred to as a white supremacist because there are numerous media outlets that report him as such ([15]). Another is that Spencer is more identifiable as a white nationalist (again, because multiple media outlets report on him as such [16]), with reference to fact that he is referred to as white supremacist by some other sources. Major issues to consider is that Spencer has repeatedly publically stated that he does NOT identify as a "white supremacist" (this is a WP:BLP article). Another issue is that some editors claim there is no difference between white nationalism and white supremacy so the distinction is meaningless. Looking for alterate opinions. JRBx45x (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• White Supremacist - This is extremely well sourced as it currently stands in the lede, look at the refs (collapsed below) All of those are from reliable sources for facts such as CNN, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Christian Science Monitor. There are also many more high-quality, weight-y RS that call him a white supremacist which are not currently cited (for example: [17][18]) so there is really no excuse for leaving this out. If people are really going to raise a stink about prioritizing this guy's self-definition over what the most reliable sources call him, then can I live with "white supremacist and white nationalist," as their are a lot of sources that call him that, but this seems somewhat redundant, and even if it's included, "white supremacist" should be stated foremost and most prominently. This is really an obvious case of "let's call a spade a spade a spade" - especially when numerous high-quality RS do exactly that. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

references + quotes supporting "white supremacist"
References

• Comment I'd like to highlight a major straw man being set up in this RfC; namely, "Major issues to consider is that Spencer has repeatedly publically stated that he does NOT identify as a 'white supremacist'". As there's a wealth of reliable secondary sources available that describe Spencer, his self-styled label of "identitarian" is less important, and should not (and is not) stressed as prominently in the lead, although it should be included (and is). Rockypedia (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very explicit about how to treat articles for living persons. JRBx45x (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Another procedural objection. RfC statements should be neutral. This one isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh, they tried. The first sentence is the RFC and appears neutral enough. The rest could/should be moved into the OP's !vote. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I will withdraw my objection if JRBx45x removes those sentences. (I was guilty of the same mistake when I did my first RfC.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist. As our article on White nationalism and its sources indicate, white supremacism is a subset of white nationalism. We have sources saying that Spencer is a white supremacist, and sources saying he's a white nationalist. But we have no reliable sources saying he's not a white supremacist. Therefore, "white supremacist" is verifiable and neutral. Labeling Spencer as both a white supremacist and a white nationalist is verifiable and neutral as well, but it's redundant. It's like saying that robin eggs are blue and light blue. Do we need to compare how many sources say robin eggs are blue versus how many say they're light blue? No, both are verifiable, so we choose the more precise label to better inform our readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think there is some confusion as to what the point of this RfC is. Nobody is denying that there are plenty of sources that refer to Spencer as a white supremacist. You can list all 125,000 references [19] to this if you wish. However, there are nearly 4 times as many hits for "Richard Spencer white nationalist" on Google [20] than there are for "Richard Spencer white supremacist." The two are not synonymous, so why is "white supremacist" front and center with no mention of "white nationalist?" JRBx45x (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think people understand that's the point of your argument, but the point of the RfC is to establish consensus around whether we should describe as a white nationalist, a white supremacist, or both. You have made your point, now letter others make theirs. No one is obligated to frame the issue around your arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My arguments? I've made no argument in this RfC yet. I'm trying to steer the conversation into a direction that's productive. Responding to this RfC with "there's a lot of sources that say he's a white supremacist" is the equivalent of saying "there's a lot of sources that refer to him as a man." We're not discussing whether the sources exist or not. JRBx45x (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist is OK. First, leaving aside refs for the moment, is it true? Yes, it is. Look at this tweet after the Superbowl: "For the White race, it's never over". That is not a sign of mere white nationalism; that is crowing about the inherent superiority of the white race. So, he is actually a white supremacist, I think that is established.

So, do we have the refs to back that up? Yes, I think that we have sufficient refs, shown here. I'd rather have Time or the New York Times than somewhat-liberal outlets such as Salon and HuffPost, but Salon and Huffpost are large mainstream publication. They're good enough. And there are others, albeit not so good.

So then finally we want to be careful because of WP:BLP. The guiding spirit of BLP defined by Jimbo is "we are not here to make people sad". Well, I don't think Spencer would mind being described as a white supremacist. It's not harming his reputation. So I wouldn't overly worry about that. So, it's true, pretty clearly. We have IMO sufficient refs. And BLP is not a huge factor here. So Bob's your uncle: white supremacist. Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• What's the difference? According to American leftist anti-racists all forms of white nationalism are white supremacist as well (other racial groups are allowed to have nationalist sentiments because they are less privileged). I don't think it makes any difference which one we choose, probably better to straight choose white supremacist so it fits better with the rest of the narrative without any unnecessary babbling.--Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment This sounds like a very pointed personal opinion. Do you have any references to back up these assertions, or is it just your preferred narrative? Rockypedia (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Both They are separate (though closely related and often overlapping) terms, and there are an ample number of sources that use each term, enough that tallying them would be pointless. The ideological arguments I've seen in threads above to insist on supremacist has no place in an encyclopedia. Hell, why don't we throw out both terms and just call him a Nazi? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, as I understand your argument, it's premised on the contention that one can be a white supremacist while not being a white nationalist. What evidence do you have for this? This is important because I think some of the editors who !voted for "white supremacist," including myself, only did so based on the (perhaps incorrect) premise that white supremacists were strictly a subset of white nationalists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Looking at our own article, the paragraph (in the lede of White nationalism) that WS is a subgroup of WN is sourced to a NY Times article which actually says the exact opposite - "While white nationalism certainly overlaps with white supremacy and racism, many political scientists say it is a distinct phenomenon" and then goes on to discuss expert opinions. There are other political scientists who believe that (again according to our article) "ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy", but there are experts on both sides of the issue. Since the idea of whether or not it is a subgroup is disputed, and by non-WP:FRINGE sources, we shouldn't take it as absolute fact in Wikipedia's voice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There's exactly one political scientist quoted in that article - Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck University - who says that the two are distinctly different. Nowhere in that article is he called an "expert" (I mention this because you called them "expert opinions"). In addition, his opinion of white nationalism seems to differ from the mainstream, as he frames it as going above and beyond white supremacist beliefs, in that it involves not only white supremacist beliefs, but also "white people should maintain both a demographic majority and dominance of the nation’s culture and public life." This would make it seem that being a white nationalist is actually considered more abhorrent than being a white supremacist, but in fact, most of the reason "white nationalist" has been adopted by modern-day white supremacists is that it doesn't sound as offensive - yet. So I don't know how you can justify removing "white supremacist" from the lead. I'd personally be okay with using both, but there seems to be a majority that are against that based on the fact that the two terms overlap so much (which I agree with) and that "white nationalist" is simply a more marketing-friendly euphemism for "white supremacist" (which I also agree with). Rockypedia (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated in my !vote, I don't intend to remove white supremacist from the lede. I believe listing both would be the best compromise here based on the available sources that use both labels. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist Best we aim for the most accurate label we can rather than the broadest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. Everything's been said, ad nauseam, every time this comes up. Reliable sources, self-identification doesn't trump RS, etc etc. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist Cited sources are clear enough. As I've pointed out before, the only parties interested in seeing "white nationalist" as the description are those pushing for a whitewashing of the label "supremacist" with the more publicly "acceptable" term "nationalist". Personally, I think that's a dead end, because if you get the population at large to accept "white nationalist" as your label of choice for white supremacists, it's just going to make "white nationalist" as abhorrent a term as the old one, eventually. I guess at that point they'll push a new sanitized term for white supremacy. In any case, I'm against euphemisms in the lead, and many reliable sources describe Spencer as exactly what he is, despite what his own media-savvy preferred label for himself may be. Rockypedia (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. Status quo is fine; the sources identify him as such. Other labels are already included in lead section appropriately. Neutrality^talk 17:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist. The 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' did it for me. Also what's the difference between White Nationalist and White Supremacist? Anybody can be a nationalist, you don't have to be white to say you want England to be England or Indonesia to be Indonesian, etc. But when you add in "White Nationalist" and advocate for one race, that's supremacist language, unless they got that all wrong at my schools. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

off-topic

Also just to point out that whether on not so called ethnic cleansing is peaceful or not, it is still ethnic cleansing, and would then respectfully suggest that this individual is calling for ethnic cleansing, which in itself, is generally prosecuted internationally under the the crime against humanity known as genocide. Therefore it would be more accurate, when dealing with a subject that may be claimed to be "peaceful" by the individual calling for it, it would be better and more precise to remove the peaceful part of the mention of ethinic cleansing, to more accuratly reflect the non bias of wikipedia concerning the use of multiple weasel words when discussing the " systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder and genocidal rape." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing Just to remind you that wikipedia would probably suggest that ethnic cleansing, can not be a peaceful act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.180.212 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• White supremacist -- that's what the highest-quality sources use, and arguments against the term are very weak. In my own perspective: "whites" are not a nation and so the term itself is incoherent. But my own view on the matter can be disregarded just as much as any other editor's view can be disregarded. What matters is what the best sources use. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White nationalist -- because that's what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are currently calling him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b (February 2017) I think a more honest approach would be to call him what most sources are calling him -- a white nationalist. Then, say that some sources also call him a white supremacist, which is a label he rejects. Simply affirmatively calling him a 'supremacist' while most reliable sources are not describing him that way does not meet objectivity and verifiability standards in my opinion--and I think it risks making Wikipedia appear biased. Crillfish (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White supremacist — per above. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• White nationalist — See below:

definitions of white supremacy

Wikipedia definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy): "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." Merriam-Webster definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist): "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races" Dictionary.com definition (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy): "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society. OxfordDictionaries.com definition (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white_supremacist): "An advocate or supporter of the doctrine that white people are superior to other peoples, and should therefore have greater power, authority, or status."

Note that according to these sources (including Wikipedia itself), what makes a white supremacist depends on two factors:

• A belief in the superiority of whites over other racial groups, and
• A belief that whites have a right to control other racial groups due to real or perceived superior qualities

Spencer has repeatedly stated in several interviews that he does not want to rule over other races for any reason, as below:

statements by Spencer

Interview with Roland Martin on TV One uploaded on November 22, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5BQS79H7g starting at 10:36): Roland Martin: So, are you a white supremacist? Richard Spencer: No, I'm not a white supremacist, absolutely. White supremacy means that a white person would want to rule over other people. Martin: So you don't want to rule over other people? Spencer: I absolutely do not. We've had white supremacy in our past, whether you think of imperialism, slavery, colonialism - that's been a disaster. So no, I don't want to go to back to that. Interview with Al Jazeera uploaded on December 9, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni_6sISHnqQ starting at 0:07): Kristen Saloomey: Do you object to being called a "white supremacist"? Richard Spencer: I object to being called a white supremacist, because it's simply not true. A white supremacist would want to lord over other races, or control other races and so on. I am not a white supremacist, I do object to that. Not only is it a slur word but it's not accurate. Saloomey: But you do think that white culture should be supreme in the United States. Spencer: I think that the United States was defined by Anglo-Protestants - certainly at the beginning - but particularly after the Civil War it was defined by this big European family, so America is a white country, in terms of its rooted, historical identity. Now, things can change - in what direction are we headed? I think we're headed towards, obviously a multiracial America, a multicultural America, probably a fragmenting America, probably something that's going to be totally unrecognizable, for an American in the 20th century or 19th century. That's where we're headed! I think that obviously history can change course, if people are dedicated enough, and their ideas are powerful enough. So, yes, America is historically, undoubtedly, a white country, we're headed in a very different direction. Saloomey: But about the term "neo-Nazi"? Spencer: Well no, we're not neo-Nazis, we're not the KKK, we're not any of that stuff. Interview by independent reporter James Allsup uploaded on Feb 1, 2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n3dhOKntj4 starting at ): James Allsup: So, talking about race, and talking about white identity in those terms, will also get you labelled as a white supremacist. Now, you've rejected that term, I think that it's pretty clear the differences between being a white supremacist and being someone who talks about white identity, but could you just quickly go over the difference between white supremacy, identitarianism and race realism? Spencer: Sure, and that's a very interesting way of thinking about it. 'White supremacist' is a lot like 'racist' in the sense that it's not a real word, it's just thrown out there. But I would say that 'white supremacist' might have more of an objective validity in the sense that 'white supremacist' is like a slave owner, or someone who wants to lord over other races. There's been a tremendous amount of white supremacy in American history, I won't deny that. There's been a tremendous amount of white supremacy in world history! That is not the future, the future is not owning African slaves or owning any kind of slaves. So no, I am not a white supremacist in that sense.

These comments sound more like the talk of a white nationalist rather than a supremacist. Furthermore, supposing that Spencer is a white supremacist because so many media outlets say so is fallacious as it relies on the presumption that every outlet which has reported Spencer as such has no lack of journalistic integrity. After all the outlets which are reporting him as such do not cite any of these interview segments either out of happenstance, neutral neglect or deliberate omission - the latter can definitely go for tabloid outlets (if there is one that suggests otherwise please link it to me in this thread). If anything the article should acknowledge that media outlets are simply referring to him as one to inert confusion. Therefore I believe that in lieu of this evidence calling Spencer a 'white supremacist' is false, and the term 'white nationalist' exclusively is most fitting. It just doesn't match up with the definitions or the facts. Also my apologies with the excessive bolding, working with indents in such a small place with so much information isn't easy. Should I make it collapsible? Electrosharkskin (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Thanks to DrFleischman for the edit. Electrosharkskin (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Virtually no reliable sources are currently calling Spencer a "white supremacist" - the wiki lede is misleading

He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b (February 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017)

Affirmatively stating in the lede sentence that he is a "white supremacist" doesn't seem supported by a majority of current reliable sources. Crillfish (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an RfC going on above about this very topic. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I see you already registered a view on that. So why did you create yet another discussion on this? clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's pointless? Most people on this page seem to have a personal beef with Spencer and want to make sure he's called a 'supremacist' because they don't like him. This isn't how an encyclopedic entry should be written, frankly. There shouldn't be a 'vote' over whether to keep an erroneous descriptor that the vast majority of current reliable sources aren't using. This is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia entry, not a place to hash out your beef with the alt-right. Crillfish (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You were asked "why did you create yet another discussion on this?" and you answered "Because it's pointless?"

I don't even know what that means. What's pointless? And when you explain what you think is pointless, how does that explain why you started a second discussion? To use your own words, this isn't how a measured, intelligent discussion should be written. It feels more like a 4chan post. Is your goal is to see Spencer portrayed in a more favorable light? Then state that. Nobody gets very far with nebulous forum-type rants here. Rockypedia (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

rants? do you have any response to the fact that the vast majority of current reliable sources are not calling him a "white supremacist"? see above. The Wiki entry lede smacks of bias. Crillfish (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any answer to the three questions I posed above? Rockypedia (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RfCs are not votes (WP:NOTAVOTE). Moving this discussion to be a subsection of the RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White supremacist sources

Are nine citations necessary in the introductory sentence to substantiate that he is a white supremacist? It seems like overkill to include so many sources in that spot.--TM 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done a WP:CITEBUNDLE to eliminate the visual clutter (so the 9 appear as one footnote rather than nine separate footnotes). No opinion on whether we should cut some of the sources. Neutrality^talk 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

the WP:CITEBUNDLE was a solid idea, nice job on that. As for the number, I think that there were so many white-nationalist/white-supremacist/alt-right new accounts coming here and protesting the verbiage, that more sources were added to bolster the case that it's not just a random label being applied to a BLP, so I would think they should stay, if only to avoid the same old arguments coming up over and over again in the future. Rockypedia (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources calling him a 'supremacist' seem largely outdated and opinion based in nature. Most reliable sources are no longer calling him a supremacist. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Meeting the criteria of "white supremacist"

Wikipedia defines white supremacy as a " racist ideology centered upon the belief, and the promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." How can a man who self-evidently advocates separatism meet this definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:b00:a7e0:48b4:76cb:4df4:3a1a (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017

That is a question for the myriad reliable sources that have described him as a white supremacist. Many of the established journalists who wrote those articles have e-mail addresses or contact pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how 'reliable' the NYT and others really are in covering Spencer, to be honest. Based on the wiki article's own description of his views, he doesn't appear to meet the definition of a white supremacist. Crillfish (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on reliable sources referring to him as a white supremacist, it appears that that is the proper descriptor for him in the article's lead. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the most recent New York Times articles do not call him a 'supremacist.' Here are two from December calling him a 'white nationalist' and not a 'white supremacist': https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer

in its most recent article on Spencer in January 2017, the NYT calls him a 'far right activist' and never refers to him as a 'white supremacist' - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html

Likewise, the Washington Post's most recent mentions of Spencer refer to him as a 'nationalist' and not a 'supremacist' -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist)

Hate Spencer's views all you want (and I do), but the entry to the wikipedia article on him is misleading. I do think there is a definition difference between the two terms. Crillfish (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read literally almost everything on this talk page where this issue has been beaten to a bloody pulp, and then the vote that resulted from that discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So a non-answer? Nearly all latest sources are referring to him as a nationalist and not a supremacist, he claims he is not a supremacist, he doesn't meet wikipedia's own definition of supremacist, but the description is staying because a bunch of anonymous editors who don't like Spencer "voted" it that way? weird Crillfish (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More recent WaPo calling him a WN and not a WS https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b Crillfish (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a more honest approach would be to call him what most sources are calling him -- a white nationalist. Then, say that some sources also call him a white supremacist, which is a label he rejects. Simply affirmatively calling him a 'supremacist' while most reliable sources are not describing him that way does not meet objectivity and verifiability standards in my opinion. Crillfish (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You should make this argument and enter a !vote in the RFC above, that's where this is going to be decided. It's kind of pointless (and disruptive) to have a simultaneous discussion here on the same issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Playing into his hand

I think this guy is a scumbag, but by starting this article calling him a While supremacist--in the very first dang line, then locking the article, you are validating the what they claim about "shitlibs" (their word, not mine)!

Sure, somewhere in the article say, "many mainstream news organizations call Spencer a white supremacist (with citations)". Great, you look reasonably balanced. But what you are doing now makes you look every bit as extreme as him!

Stop being so stupid, stop giving these people more ammo, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.182.172 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What's liberal, imbalanced, extreme, or otherwise wrong with calling Spencer a white supremacist? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, that it's completely misleading and biased? Neither the New York Times and Washington Post currently refer to Spencer this way. He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b (February 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

indeed. wikipedia simply isn't working properly, when the topic is an unpopular person or opinion. the only way to fix it would be to make the public unable to edit these articles and leave it to a team of professionals. i doubt that is happening though, and consequently wikipedia will just continue to fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.220.167 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

that Spencer's lede descriptor as a 'supremacist' is based on a bunch of wikipedia editors' desire to label him that way, rather than because it's based on a majority of current reliable sources. See above. This isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work. Crillfish (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How is wikipedia supposed to work, exactly? Rockypedia (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not base article ledes of controversial figures on "votes" of anonymous editors with an agenda? As has been demonstrated throughout this page, far more current, reliable sources are calling Spencer a "nationalist" instead of a "supremacist." In fact, Wikipedia is probably the only current "reputable" resource I've seen still calling him a "white supremacist." I've been unable to find much of anything in the way of current MSM reliable sources referring to him this way anymore. Only Wikipedia, which lists dated articles from 2014 and 2015 to justify it. This "process" is broken because it's controlled by people who aren't being objective. Crillfish (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia fails again

WP:NOTHERE

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white supremacist.[3] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian. You people are so biased. You think all of your readers are too stupid to be able to read the article and come to their own conclusions, so you insist on applying a label to this guy that he expressly denies. Fuck wikipedia and fuck the people who wrote this page. You can justify your behavior any way you want, but remember the golden rule, assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:8200:4830:b561:b3e7:7c45:5e0 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2017 Is there a neutral definition of 'white supremacist'? If not, and he rejects the label, it should not be used as a definition. It should say he has been called it and rejects it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC) The source makes no mention of that. He says he is a white nationalist but that he preferes to be called an identitarian.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Can I suggest that people not reply to someone who is either a troll or a trolling sockpuppet? There's an RfC, stick to that. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction request.

The article falsely calls Spencer a white supremacist. He is a white nationalist not supremacist. This label was put on him by fake news CNN and Jewish forward etc. More details: http://sakibarifin.blogspot.com/2017/02/clickbait-media-deception-media-falsely.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This issue has already been extensively hashed out, and the consensus is that Spencer should be described as a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

the idea that this has been "hashed out" is ridiculous. You clearly have a personal beef with Spencer and want to make sure he's called a "white supremacist" because you don't like him. Virtually no reliable sources are currently calling Spencer a "white supremacist," which renders the lede misleading. He's being almost universally described as either a "white nationalist," "alt-right leader," or "far-right activist." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/richard-spencer-twitter.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/whitefish-montana-jews-daily-stormer.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html (December 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-spokesman-was-punched-in-the-face-on-camera-in-d-c/?utm_term=.379f7f752915 (January 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-one-alexandria-neighborhood-the-alt-right-is-all-wrong/2017/01/17/d4f893b6-dce6-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.89ba5fb43692 (January 2017 - this one even goes into how Spencer isn't a supremacist) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.7f50d37ed95b (February 2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/cpac-organizer-denounces-alt-right-as-left-wing-fascist-group/ (February 2017) http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-removed-cpac-n724696 (February 2017) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/23/alt-right-leader-kicked-out-cpac/98318034/ (February 2017) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516867886/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-kicked-out-of-cpac (February 2017) Crillfish (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You've made it quite clear across four different discussions, and there is no point in repeating it over and over and over again. In fact it is getting quite disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair Dr. Fleischman, that implies most people even return to the discussion page to begin with, let alone change their vote simply out of principle. After all, no organic consensus is gonna be reached on this matter because we can't even sort the people who genuinely care about the issue vs. people who have beef against Spencer's politics. I mean come on, the best the WS side can say is "the media said it's true so it must be" and other non-arguments, and like they're gonna go back and contest it because right now their vote is as good as gold whether or not they've laid out a proper argument. It's most likely going to stay unresolved until someone goes ahead and corrects it themselves and someone reverses the edit because they're still waiting on a consensus that will virtually never come. Electrosharkskin (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"The media said it's true so it must be" is hardly a non-argument--it's Wikipedia policy. If you want to change that policy, you can start a new discussion at WP:VPP, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See above, most current reliable sources AREN'T calling him a 'white supremacist.' So the lede ***isn't even consistent with Wikipedia policy as you define it.*** Crillfish (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

For the whateverth time, you've made your point, and consensus is against you. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This page has been overrun with anonymous editors with an agenda. Sad to see. People like you are undermining the objectivity of the wikipedia project. Crillfish (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a very ironic statement coming from an anonymous editor with an agenda. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, me and those right wingers at the New York Times and Washington Post!! Crillfish (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't quote unsubstantiated claims by any website if I'm after reliability, but fair enough. Like the outcome will change at all. Electrosharkskin (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Stronger or weaker

The question of if punching nazis makes their ideas stronger or weaker remains controversial. Benjamin (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That might be true, but we can't add it to our article without citing a source that says that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/87Nazis/

Benjamin (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyQiwlAHlc

How should this information be incorporated into the article? @Fyddlestix:

Benjamin (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's shouldn't. The article is about spencer, a discussion about whether or not "punching neo Nazis makes them weaker or stonger" is off topic and does not belong in the article at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there another more appropriate article? The video specifically talks about Spencer. Benjamin (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring report

I have submitted an edit warring report against Crillfish over content related to the recently closed RfC regarding the description of Spencer as a white supremacist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN blocked him for 48 hours, hopefully that will put a stop to it. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist and antisemite?

Should we append the first sentence of the article with antisemite? Most of the sources calling him a white supremacist also state his antisemitic views as pretty central to his character. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide specific sources? I looked through all of the ones we're citing to call him a white supremacist and I didn't find any that described him as anti-semitic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"refused to denounce Adolf Hitler"

The lead has included the (sourced) sentence, "Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler" for quite some time now. Recently an editor attempted to qualify that statement with "despite calling some of his actions 'despicable.'" As the source quite clearly points out, Spencer at no time states which actions he found despicable, and the way this addition was worded was designed to mitigate the impact of Spencer refusing to denounce Hitler. I find that to be in violation WP:NPOV, and I removed it, and provided that quote, plus the full context, in the body of the article, where it had not existed before. Rockypedia (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"White Supremacist Label -- Spencer is an Identarian"

Hi, clearly its inaccurate to label a person with white supremacist views if that persons states they're not. Spencer is an "identarian" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement and has stated as much very publicly on many occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolis-Marmite (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed; in short, there is a clear consensus that reliable sources describe him and his views as white supremacist. We note that he disagrees, but we base our articles on what reliable sources say, not what someone proclaims themselves to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I have reliable sources that say the Pope is a Buddist, can you update his Wikipedia page? *eye roll*