Talk:Richard B. Spencer

Caption..

Beyond My Ken I am perfectly aware the MOS isn't mandatory. That doesn't give you license to impose your preferences over (so far) the objections of 3 users and common practice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

IAR gives me that precisely that license. Redundant information is redundant. The article titlte is "Richard B. Spencer", the infobox title is "Richard B. Spencer", what purpose, exactly does identifying the image as Spencer have? None, none at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not lean on IAR much when it comes to edit warring against three other editors and status quo. I would agree that, if that caption were simply his full name, it would be redundant (although I have seen similar in other articles). However, just the year, and especially in parentheses, is very odd to my eyes. I think the current version represents best practice across Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could use a more descriptive caption like "Spencer speaking at the 2016 National Policy Institute conference in Washington, D.C." - MrX 🖋 13:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a note here indicating my support for changing this infobox caption and all infobox captions to "(Date)" and not "(Name) in (date)" for the reasons stated in WP:YOUDONTSAY (and stated again by BMK above). Leviv ich 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "At the Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, D.C., on November 19, 2016". Leviv ich 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Captions should be brief but descriptive, and not in parentheses for crying out loud. As I suggested above, including the subject's full name or last name is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 12:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

MrX, bad writing is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. Leviv ich 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Putting only the year in a caption is bad writing. Including the name of the subject is not. - MrX 🖋 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

MLK day?

Should this deletion be supported?

If a white supremacist makes some public action on a notable public holiday, such as Martin Luther King Day, then that's significant and should be recorded here.

We shouldn't assume their motivation unless supported by WP:RS, but the simple fact of the date - that's justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly, Wikipedia's original research policy makes "because I said so" a non-starter for sourcing claims. --Calton | Talk 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is the OR? The date is sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This can be sourced through [1] Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, great. Now his defenders can re-run that "SPLC is just non-RS Libtards" thread again. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I originally rejected this deletion from an IP editor (through the Review Changes process), but Calton reverted my rejection and then I suffered his typically sarcastic and somewhat abusive messages to me, even when I tried to explain my rationale for rejecting the deletion. I believe the deletion should not stand, but do not need to re-read Calton's arguments, as I well understand his position because he provided four OP-ED articles about John Birch Society all based on the same WaPo writer that had nothing to do with Spencer. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• It does appear that there are a couple other sources that mention the date coincided with MLK day, but I don't really see the point in mentioning Spencer's trollish timing. It's not like we need additional evidence that he is a racist. Nblund ^talk 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think we do Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Spencer is quoted as calling King a "fraud and a degenerate", so I'm really not sure anyone who isn't already persuaded by that point is going to be persuaded by this implicit dig at his legacy. Some outlets who covered the launch briefly mentioned that it coincided with MLK day, but others didn't. So it doesn't seem essential. If our goal is to inform people that Spencer is hostile toward King or civil rights in general, why not just point to his explicit statements? Nblund ^talk 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The date being MLK Day appears to be trivia and does not need to be mentioned. It's not like anybody is confused about Spencer's ideology. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Facts do need to be mentioned whether someone already knows them or not. I'd suggest that what some consider trivial, others consider meaningful, especially when they further inform a reader as to just how someone is communicating their ideaology. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning entry to Poland

An editor is persistently removing information related to this diff. I’ve had a look at the source and it probably could do with better wording, but I doubt that wholesale removal of the source and its related text is due. Can someone please look at the edit, as I am at 1r today and there are DS on this page? (something which has been made clear to the reverting editor who has now exceeded this limit) Edaham (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I just removed one sentence and the source accompanying it now because I can't see any reference to what it says within the source. [User:Blight55|Blight55]] 13:22 04/03/2019 (UTC).

the sentence was in a paragraph about him being refused entry to Poland and the source was about that too. Clearly our understanding of this is at odds, but someone else will take a look, so no big deal I guess. Edaham (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)