The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
I have a simple question: Is the goal of Wikipedia to repeat what "reliable secondary sources" say, or is it to be accurate? If "reliable secondary sources" say something that every reasonable person knows is false (by simply using common sense), are editors just supposed to ignore common sense and make edits they know are false? Because, that's what's going on here with the lead. NFLExpert49 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that every reasonable person knows that Jared Taylor isn't a white supremacist? Because... yeah, no, every reasonable person knows that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:TRUTH. In fairness: if Wikipedians all agree that a source clearly gets it wrong, there might be an argument for removing or hedging on a claim. In this case, the sources aren't wrong. Nblundtalk15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for that quote from Taylor that falls under the definition of "white supremacy." All you need is one. Repeating numbers from studies actual scientists conducted showing that different races have different mean IQs is not "white supremacy." White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior, period; not just intellectually superior, on average, to some races. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is just absurd. Wikipedia has officially jumped the shark. Somebody seriously made a Wikipedia rule that says that appealing to actually peer-reviewed sources like the DICTIONARY is a fallacy? It's an "appeal to authority" fallacy to cite the dictionary, but it's not an appeal to authority fallacy to cite somebody's article in the New York Times, or someone's poorly researched book? Congratulations...I'm officially done with Wikipedia. That's...there are no words. You people don't even believe the stuff you're spewing. Have fun policing all the wrongthink people's pages with your 5-6 person SJW editor clique. Everyone outside Wikipedia thinks you're a joke. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: Claiming that the dictionary is unreliable for the meaning of words shows a lack of understanding for how dictionaries work. Dictionaries are peer-reviewed by PROFESSIONALS to ensure that every meaning that is in common use (CONSENSUS) is listed. If it were consensus that "white supremacist" meant something that applies to Taylor, it would be in there. Alas, it's not. That's because the consensus definitions for "white supremacist" have nothing to do with anything Taylor has ever said. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary does not say the sources are wrong. They say nothing at all about Taylor or the sources. Your synthesis is not helpful. Your 7 month long quest is not going to be resolved by repeatedly arguing on this talk page. I'd suggest you open a Request for comments or use another source of dispute resolution. - SummerPhDv2.015:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terms
Ok we seen to be having a problem with the wording again! can we get all to read the RfC and then comment here.--Moxy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 26 July 2018
Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To edit for partisan bias and defamatory untruth which will only seek to create further racial divides in this country. This man does not consider himself a racist nor do many who follow him, it should say this here. 216.70.29.154 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a "reliable source" for anyone in the history of the universe "not being racist?" There's no such thing as a "reliable secondary source" for something like that; saying somebody is not racist is nothing more than speculation. Any source that makes that kind of a claim as though it is fact loses all credibility and therefore isn't a reliable secondary source. NFLExpert49 (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - isn't this a bit too categorical just to paint a person "racist" on Wikipedia, basically the first site on the whole Internet that comes up when one googles his name? Yes, his beliefs are controversial, but he himself claims not to be a white supremacist. I think that the claim of him being a white supremacist shouldn't be in the very first, i.e. defining, sentence. The world isn't just black and white, and Wiki shouldn't be neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchan12345 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just say he is a racist, we say he is a white supremacist, as is the magazine he edits and the organization behind it. We say these things because that's what independent reliable sources say. (Every organization mentioned in the first paragraph is white supremacist or white nationalist.) - SummerPhDv2.018:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primary and secondary sources are useful for different things. If you wanted to list Jared Taylor's height, you would want a secondary source looking at his medical records or something that can confirm it, rather than take his word for it. If you wanted to list what Jared Taylor's favorite movie is, you would ask Jared Taylor. Likewise, if you wanted to list Jared Taylor's political beliefs, you would ask Jared Taylor. If NYT or CNN or another source that isn't Jared Taylor describes him as a white supremacist, and he himself states that he isn't a white supremacist and regularly explains why he doesn't believe in white supremacy but instead uses the phrase "white advocacy," then those sources writing otherwise are not reliable, any more than if you had a source of Jared Taylor saying "my favorite ice cream flavor is pistachio and I dislike strawberry" and the New York Times stated that his favorite flavor is strawberry. How would you call that a "reliable source" and take it as more accurate than the subject's direct account of his own thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5402:5900:ACBF:86F2:5978:17EB (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. Political beliefs, racism, homophobia, criminal convictions, all of that kind of stuff seems to mysteriously disappear when you stick to primary sources. Suddenly, everyone is an angel who wants all the children of the world to gather in a sunny meadow to join hands and sing songs of love, joy and racial harmony. In first person primary sources, there are no racists, dictators or megalomaniacal mass murderers.
In the present case, every proper noun in the first paragraph is white supremacist according to multiple independent reliable sources. Taylor is a white supremacist who founded the white supremacist American Renaissance. He is author and the president of white supremacist magazine's white supremacist parent organization, New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of the white supremacist The Occidental Quarterly which is funded by a white supremacist organization. He is a former director of the white nationalist National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens.
I kind of doubt you will ever find satisfaction here. You might do better elsewhere. Conservapedia doesn't have an article on Taylor, I'm not sure how Schlafly feels about Taylor, so I'm not sure if you'll be any happier there (it's probably 50/50). Rationalwiki says he's the intellectual godfather of the racist political far-right, so I don't think you'll be happy there either. Assuming the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi Metapedia has an article on Taylor (I'm not interested in looking), I think it's likely to be something you'd feel comfortable with. - SummerPhDv2.001:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is facile. Jared Taylor is not John Harrison, and absolutely nobody cares about Taylor's "favorite flavor of ice cream". Reliable sources look at Taylor's statements and make the informed conclusion that he is a white supremacist. Anyone who purports to be surprised by these conclusions either isn't paying attention in the slightest, or is being disingenuous. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that there's no primary source of this man, who is labeled as a white supremacist and apparently now the godfather of racist politics, declaring whites are superior to others? Is he just bad at being a white supremacist and doesn't get how it's supposed to work? What is the label based on then, just the supposition that he must be a supremacist even if he doesn't know it? You could certainly label him as a White Nationalist and White Separatist, but the way the article begins with "Jared Taylor is an American white supremacist and editor of a white supremacist magazine, published by a white supremacist publisher, and if you're reading this right now then you're a white supremacist too" is ridiciulous, inaccurate well-poisoning.
The ice cream analogy wasn't far off. If Jared Taylor states that he doesn't see white people as superior to others (if anything, he could be considered an East Asian supremacist), and then New York Times states that he does, why are they the more reliable source? How would they possibly be able to verify that question better than he could?
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 