Talk:Jared Taylor

Yes he is a white supremacist

I first thought he isn't because he distantiates himself from being one in an interview from CNN. But because Wikipedia users always change it back to White Supremacist based on liberal sources I 'm convinced and this is totally according to WP and objective and not an opinion for sure. Thanks for informing me Wikipedia. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, great use of the word "distantiates". Rockypedia (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: be careful. We will be knee deep in another RfC on neologisms if we start encouraging that kind of thing. Edaham (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And "demonetization" below (does it have something to do with monetary policy?). Perhaps there is something in the drinking water. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He literally said Asians are superior to whites. Doesn't that prove that he isn't a white supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.58.229 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017‎

No, it really, really doesn't. 'White supremacy' doesn't mean what he or you seem to think it means, and he is absolutely not a reliable source for this definition. The "Asian supremacy" thing has only a flimsy influence on his practical positions, making it an obvious deflection. He isn't advocating whites voluntarily give up their rights and land to become politically inferior to Asian people. He is, however, advocating that whites work to take political power and social influence from all other races (in ways that would necessarily require violence). Further, Taylor isn't an impartial source for this terminology regardless, which makes his preferred euphemisms irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so anyone who thinks that a race of people has interests as a group and should protect their borders and other rights is a supremacist? So basically 95% of the planet [and basically everyone who is not White] would be a supremacist, by this logic?24.79.130.133 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. If you would like to learn about white supremacy, Wikipedia has an article on it, and I'm sure many of the sources at that article could be informative. This talk page, however, is not the place to discuss the general topic, only to discuss improving the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is NOT a white supremacist! He has stated numerous times that he has no desire to be in a dominate position over any race. Jared has stated numerous times that Asians have shown higher scores on IQ tests just has he has stated whites core higher than blacks. And he uses documented tests to gain his conclusion. White supremacists do not acknowledge any race intellectually superior than its own! Jared Taylor is a segregationist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTTyson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We've already been over this countless times, including this very talk page section. See this article's talk page archives for multiple additional explanations of why his self-description is both irrelevant and incorrect. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because you believe whites are more intelligent than other races and should be left alone doesn't mean you want whites to dominate other races. Weird how people conflate the two. 68.106.54.68 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Taylor is not a "white supremacist"

None of the sources cited say how or why Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, they merely assert it. Until some actual evidence can be provided to support this label, I think it's honestly best to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs)

What you "think" isn't at all important; what reliable sources describe the subject as, is. You made similar suggestions, and tried to edit-war your preferred version, into the article several months ago. What are you bringing to the talk page here today that is different from what you suggested in June? TheValeyard (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• How odd this post appears today.....new source just published. ..should we use it? CQ Researcher (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity. SAGE Publications. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2..--Moxy (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Saying "is an American white nationalist and white supremacist" transform an judgmental opinion into an indisputable fact. However, this opinion is disputed by several people (see the many posts here), so it certainly can't be considered as an indisputable. Something like "is often been described as an American white nationalist and white supremacist" is, on the other hand, an indisputable fact. There is no reason to revert this change. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Later in this very article: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Incidentally, I recently saw an interview with this man where he found the idea of white supremacy laughable for this very reason. Providing biased sources that make assertions does not make something a fact. The bias and logical inconsistency in this article is a disgrace. Staying anonymous lest one of the "sources" here describe me as a white supremacist. 209.122.241.80 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls read over Scientific racism.--Moxy (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that the opinions of several people determine how we present well-verified information. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional external link

There is an archived version of Mr. Taylor's personal website at https://archive.jaredtaylor.org

I can't figure out if this is the correct place to do/recommend this, but it seems a candidate for inclusion in the links section.

Gregraven (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

The edit to be made should be the removal of "white supremacist". In a video interview with CNN, Jared Taylor disavows white supremacy and says he is NOT a white supremacist whatsoever. Taylor continues to say a white supremacist is an individual that wants white people to control everything and have power over everyone. This falls in line with the definition of supremacy. Furthermore, Taylor adds he, as a white man with an European heritage, just wants to be left alone. He is similar to a Japanese citizen wanting Japan to remain majority Japanese culture and heritage. We do not call this person a Japanese Supremacist. Honestly, the inclusion of "white supremacist" in the description of Jared Taylor is slander and libelous. This should be immediately removed. A link to the interview in pasted below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol6GA4dMZw4 Sebastianany12 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively. See this RfC for more detail. Rockypedia (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pls gain WP:consensus first.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• This has been discussed many, many times before. Why the sudden surge of comments about this? Is it just the twitter thing, or did some youtuber or gabber post something about it? Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

The wikipedia page of "White Supremacy" states: "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races"

Jared Taylor refuses that label in the CNN interview of May 5 with Sara Sidner of CNN, stating he has 'no desire' over such power. This is consistent with other TV appearances in which he did advocate racial segregation, but firmly rejected the idea of white dominance over other races. None of the given sources give any quote of Jared Taylor advocating white dominance.

I thereby request that notions of white supremacy on this page to be removed or placed under a 'criticisms' or 'accusations' header. 2001:980:1DFE:1:D084:381A:AB4A:5794 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 not done We have discussed this at length. His white supremacist views and their documentation in reliable sources are well founded and available through the citations in the article. Edaham (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

There is one thing that needs to be changed with this page. Jared Taylor is a White Nationalist, but not a White Supremacist. To not falsely connect these two words, I suggest that the sentences metioning his association to White supremacy be deleted.

Thank you. :) Tyffen123 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

READ ME....CLICK HERE to see term usage.--Moxy (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 not done You can read the references in the article itself, and read the archives of this talk page to find the lengthy discussion about exactly this topic, to learn about why Taylor is described as exactly what he is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussed extensively already. There is consensus to keep the current wording. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

If Taylor denies that he is a white supremacist and a racist, then you can't say so in the lede in Wikipedia's voice. You have to say that others have described him as such. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. This isn't a platform for his euphemistic public relations. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist removed from lede

[1] Seems like at least an incredibly bold edit. Where's the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. Personally, I agree with Grayfell (talk) that including both terms is redundant, and as "white nationalist" is, at best, not as specific as "white supremacist", and at worst, well-sourced as a euphemism for white supremacist anyway, then only the second term is necessary. Rockypedia (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It came about following discussion regarding Richard Spencer, where someone suggested adding "white nationalist" to water down the supremacist line, and it was noted that this article was doing that as well. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with just using 'white supremacist'. No need to pussy foot around. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• No matter the lead wording ......pls do not delete sources that were the result of a RfC....pls move them and the clearly defined term to the body. We are not here to water down our coverage of reliable sources. Side note RfC here much broader then the one linked above.--Moxy (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously, I support the simpler language also. This ties into a deeper problem with Wikipedia's articles on white nationalism and white supremacy, which fail to properly indicate just how closely intertwined the two are. Sources often use the two interchangeably, so I suspect we are we reading more into the sources' word choices than the sources themselves are. That's a problem. We should not pretend Taylor's position is in some way sophisticated, or that it's more nuanced than it is. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I support this as well. I really don't see the point of using both. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would urge caution in conflating the terms "nationalist" and "supremacist" They are certainly labels that individuals and organizations self-apply, but they are also defined differently in modern scholarship on racial issues. White supremacism necessarily includes the concept of racial hierarchy and there is significant academic debate over whether that's a defining feature of nationalism. Supremacists often refer to themselves as nationalists to water down their image, but we should be sticking to what's written in reliable sources about him. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Laser brain entirely. It's unfortunate that the media get confused over these and at times take separatists who call themselves nationalists at their word, but we need to stick to what reliable sources say. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think "white supremacist" does stick to what reliable sources say. It's a subset of white nationalism, and as such, it's more specific to use that term alone. You wouldn't say "Curt Schilling is an athlete and a baseball player" even though there are reliable sources that refer to him as an athlete. Rockypedia (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• It's true that the "nationalist" label is usually used to water down white supremacy, but I think scholars generally draw a distinction here (example). While it's difficult to imagine someone being a white nationalist without also being a white supremacist, there are some white supremacists who don't endorse white nationalism, so it's a useful distinction. Nblund ^talk 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis, this might (rarely) apply, but I believe this is clearly not one of those cases. Rockypedia (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Really think those wishing to change the lead that was the result of a big RfC should hold another RfC. Not sure this small talk is more reflective of consensus then the latter talk.--Moxy (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This distinction does exist, but I think that by introducing this detail in the lede, we are subtly validating Taylor's unsupported and fringe claim that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a white supremacist. By presenting these two as different and equivalent we are implying that this distinction is more significant than it is as it applies to Taylor. Since virtually every white nationalist is a white supremacist, which of these terms better explains who he is, according to reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Then let's use both terms but not side by side.....like ..Jared Taylor is a white nationalist from.... He is the founder of the white supremacist magazine..... Both terms can easily be sourced....it's not our job to interpret what is wrong with the usage....but to simply regurgitate the sources as they appear.--Moxy (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this suggestion is actually more of a WP:OR violation than the current lead. We'd be cherry-picking one term to describe him and another to describe the magazine. The more descriptive, and more accurate term, should be used in each case. In each case, that term is "white supremacist", as "white nationalist" is the euphemism that modern white supremacists adopted in order to soften their image. That's well-supported and well-sourced, and in the end, that's what matters. Rockypedia (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In my vew cherry-picking would be using just one term when both are used by the media and academic sources in different contexts..... as described by this Washington Post article about Richard . Less is not always better when many see different meaning with the terms. This is not the page to educate people on the usage of the terms just to regurgitate and link the terms used. Link the water down term and explain how the term is watered down in that main term article. As metioned above may be best we get more involved here. --Moxy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rockypedia: "white nationalist" is a euphemism. I don't suppose it's the end of the world if we mention that term, but if so, it must be in addition to—not instead of—"white supremacist" which is the generic term according to an ample number of reliable sources. It's very important that we don't inadvertently sanitize articles by omitting "white supremacist". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter ban and subsequent court case

Hi all, I recently included details of Taylor's decision to begin legal proceedings against Twitter - details of the edit I made can be found here, (in the final paragraph of the reception section). Ronz suggested that this information did not merit inclusion. I just wondered what other people thought? For my part, this seems like a very reasonable addition to the page, not least because it builds upon existing material in the wiki page regarding Twitter's decision to ban Taylor. The information can be attributed to a reliable source of information. Jono1011 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe with better sources. The reference is little more than an announcement that he's suing, giving basically nothing but the perspective of Taylor and his lawyer.

Consider some hypothetical situations: If the case gets thrown out, would we keep the material? Of if it's settled without terms being disclosed? What about it could be encyclopedic if there's no legal analysis? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: sources, I think the following sites could be included: 1, 2, copies of the papers that were files 3

In terms of encyclopaedic value, I think there are three points that can be made:

1. It helps to update a page which already refers to the fact that Taylor's account has been suspended by Twitter
2. I think it is noteworthy that Taylor is being represented by Marc Randazza, who also represents Andrew Anglin, publisher of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website.
3. It is noteworthy that Taylor's argument, that Twitter violated Californian law protecting free speech in public spaces, has not previously been applied to the internet.

In the event that the case gets thrown out, we can update the page accordingly, presumably taking care to include details of why it was thrown out, but the points above still standJono1011 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your second and third points don't appear to be supported by references. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The second point is supported by this reference, the third point is supported by this reference. Jono1011 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think since we mention the suspension we should mention the lawsuit. We should never use Scribd as a source, ripe with copyvio and we wouldn't use court files as sources. You've got enough reliable sources for it. As an aside, the word 'noteworthy' isn't used the way we use it here. I'd mention the fact of the lawsuit and the lawyer. And Twitter's response. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, very happy not to include the Scribd sources Jono1011 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)