Talk:Sam Francis (writer)

Personal Life

Never married 57 year old Christian conservative who railed against pornography, sodomy and miscegenation...There has to be more information here. The man had no personal life? He never even dated? No parents? No church he attended? Where is the rest of the biography here? 173.117.169.78 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

External Links

The second link in "external links," the one to samfrancis.net, no longer functions, as the domain name has expired (presumably, whoever owned it did not renew it). Does anyone have another link to his articles published in Chronicles? If so, could you add it, please? Godfrey Daniel (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well-mannered?

Does anyone, such as maybe the original anonymous author, have a citation for this quotation? It doesn't Google. -Willmcw 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) The Anti-Defamation League branded Francis "an advocate of well mannered white supremacy",...

Go to this site and search for the word 'well-mannered' , it's there. --B Sveen

Thanks for finding it. Here it is: Another featured speaker at AR conferences has been Sam Francis, a former Washington Times columnist who was dismissed in September 1995 after his racial views were publicized by conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza. Francis has since become a writer, editor and lecturer for another outpost of well-mannered white supremacy, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), and an outspoken advocate of separation of the races. In a presentation at the 1994 AR convention, Francis stated that white Americans must reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites....The civilization we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowment of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

It seems to me that the CCC is the "outpost of well-mannered white supremacy," so it isn't a literal quote to say that Francis is their advocate, but a rather a logical surmise. We should leave the quote but drop the quotation marks. -Willmcw 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too many blockq quotes

Let's cut back on the lengthy block quotes. This is an encyclopedia article, and sohold be succinct. -Will Beback 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is when dealing with a controversial figure like this, there's no real NPOV summary of what the guy says, so you have to let him speak for himself. Also, in the case of Francis, the quotes themselves become areas of contention, as in "he said X, therefore he is a racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever." Yakuman 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

His words are widely avaialbe for those who wish to read the original comments. Our job is to summarize. Where quotes aqre absolutely necessary they should be as short as possible. -Will Beback 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are seventeen quotes from hard copy sources, which aren't widely available. At the magic number of 32k, this is not terribly long. Don't worry about it. Yakuman 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Five quotes is the usual number, with the excess moved to Wikiquotes. -Will Beback 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Machiavellian"

Could someone edit "Machiavellian" to link to Niccolo Machiavelli? "Machiavellian" is a term describing a ruthless schemer, deriving from a common misconception of the controversial and misunderstood principles Machiavelli actually believed in and advocated. The way it is makes it look like Francis was a nasty character rather who would to anything to get ahead rather than a student of Machiavelli. I'd change it myself, but my browser is too small and it would cut the page in half. 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the story that Sam had a death bed conversion to catholicism?

Lead assumes too much

"Nationally syndicated" in where? Canada? Scotland? Australia? The lead needs to locate this man in history and geography, not just politics, to give the political details any context. 87.113.24.173 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Vox Day on YouTube 2018 mention of Samuel Francis

August 4 2018 Vox Day (Darkstream) live stream on YouTube was complaining that a fellow conservative columnist and commentator, Ben Shapiro, was far from an original thinking critic of the status quo narratives and presented Samuel Francis as an improved such intellect, writer, and speaker by stark comparison. However, a YouTube examination of Samuel Francis from 2000 or video recordings of a speech given so shows that he did not adequately balance his abstract political thinking with the practical health and appearance aspects of his life due to Francis' being a good deal overweight and in so doing being prone to its ill effects such as cardio vascular disease, etc. Can any of these two videos be referenced in the article? Oldspammer (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anarcho-tyranny

This neologism is not widely used outside of its original author. It would be sufficient to cover it there, where content has already been merged. It should only be split out in summary style when warranted by an overabundance of secondary, independent source coverage. czar 23:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

By now the term is almost three decades old. I expanded the article and added 8 more sources to it. Most of them are in Chronicles, but also some others. The term quite precisely describes a (real or perceived) state in a regime. The article in question will help any reader wanting to look into its meaning, origin and use. --Bensin (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, but I'm still not seeing how the term has currency outside its author. The entirety of its contents could fit within Francis's article without losing any fidelity. czar 10:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking the currency here is at least 15 years of use of the term by other writers than its creator. Sure, use may be limited (as may be expected for a term describing such a specific state) but use is established by sources and the use is consistent. About half of the writers refer back to Francis and his definition. --Bensin (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It could be 1000 years with 1000 other writers mentioning the term but if none go into any greater depth than its simple definition, then we have no substance with which to write an encyclopedia article. What fidelity would be lost from this stub if it were merged into Francis? czar 15:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Your initial objection was that the term was "not widely used outside of its original author". Now that use has been demonstrated you're arguing that even 1000 writers' use would not suffice, but for different reasons. Note that currently only online sources are used. There may well be literary sources. The article may be short, but other than the definition, it also outlines the origin, history and examples of use. All of which may benefit a reader.

What do you mean by "greater depth than its simple definition"? Though the writers in the references do use the definition they also apply it and some follow up with examples.

Even if all text and all sources were kept at a merger to the article about Francis, what would be lost would be: 1) The article name "Anarcho-tyranny" would no longer show up as a separate entry in search engines. 2) Anyone wanting to link to the definition, within or from outside Wikipeida, would have to link to a section in the Francis article, and interwiki links would not be possible. 3) It would not be as immediately apparent that the concept is separate from, and used outside, its originator. 4) It would not be possible to more precisely categorize the concept itself (since it would have to share all the categories with the Francis-article).

How would you say Wikipedia would benefit from a merger in this case? --Bensin (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)