Talk:Jared Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017[edit]

Remove the false claim that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. http://time.com/3930993/dylann-roof-council-of-conservative-citizens-charleston/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/23/us/white-supremacist-group-dylann-roof/ The sources that are supposedly trying to prove that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist say nothing to claim that he is a white supremacist, they just mention him in the article where he condemns Dylann Roofs attack. The articles never claim that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, the title just states "White supremacy". Which is just false flagging. Ztaqev2 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The first source calls Taylor a member and spokesman for a white supremacist organisation. The second source is saying the same thing but as it only calls the group white supremacist in the headline I'd prefer a better one. Such as these.[1][2][3][4][5] Then there's American Renaissance (magazine) which he founded, also described as white supremacist. Then there's the sources in the article that you haven't mentioned, and loads of sources in Google Books, eg[6] as just one example. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is a defamation of character, and it is against the law. Please remove the "white supremacist" label from this page immediately. I do not want to have to pursue legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talkcontribs) 23:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: for the reasons stated by Doug Weller. Also please see: WP:THREAT about our policy re: threatening with legal action. Jarkeld (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own policy, information about a public figure that is libelous is forbidden and is to be removed. See wikipedia's page on legal polices pertaining to libel. Based on this policy I will have to ask you again to remove the libelous information that has been posted on Jared Taylor's page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talkcontribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to explain what information about Taylor you consider libelous. Rockypedia (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking this might need to go to ANI... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect sock via article history of June. It's too obvious with all the different IPs and newly registered accounts practically removing the same thing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII: IPs are geographically scattered. Might want to file an SPI on the accounts though? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

Overall, this article does seem to be written from a Neutral Point of View, yet it seems to inspire a lot of controversy. I think this is because the first sentence uses Wikipedia's voice to express opinion as fact. The white nationalist and white supremacist stuff is really just opinion, isn't it? Better would be "... is a controversial American writer (or writer and publisher, or whatever)." Also in the introduction, the "among others" doesn't seem to be very well supported in the body of the article. IMHO, making these changes to the introduction would do a lot to improve the article, reduce the complaints and threats of lawsuits, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence summarizes what Jared Taylor is notable for, with reliable sourcing. The changes you prefer would probably satisfy a lot of Taylor's followers, but that's not a valid reason to veer away from how reliable sources describe the subject and what he's notable for. Rockypedia (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Taylor has never once put forth white supremacist views. The article would be much better written if instead it said something like "Taylor is considered by some to be a white supremacist". That is factual and true. But Taylor himself completely rejects that label. Anyone who has ever listened to his lectures would be an idiot to think he's a white supremacist. But if you insist that he is, then cite me one, just ONE, instance of him ever making white supremacist claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talkcontribs) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if anyone followed your instruction here, it would have no bearing on the article. We don't write descriptions based on inferring that someone is a certain thing because of statements they've made. We write descriptions based on what reliable secondary sources describe a subject as. Rockypedia (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That's absolutely ridiculous. When something from a "reliable secondary source" is proven false, it is no longer a reliable source for that information. To say otherwise is just being flat-out disingenuous.
The first sentence of the article presents the legitimate opinions of reliable sources as facts. It also uses judgmental language. Those two seem to violate Wikipedia's policy/requirement to maintain a Neutral Point of View. Lou Sander (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That's unrealistic. If a plain reading of sources support this, it's fine to present this as factual. To do otherwise would be to support a WP:FRINGE perspective. "Judgmental" is a dead-end. How would we describe a white nationalist and white supremacist in non-judgmental language? Actively avoiding the potential appearance of being judgmental would be non-neutral, and invites bloated writing, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence uses Wikipedia's voice to present opinions as fact. The policy is that opinions should not be presented as fact. Where do you get the notion that a plain reading of sources is OK to present as fact? It looks like you might be creating a Fake Encyclopedia. Lou Sander (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Labeling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Reliable sources do not present this as an opinion, they correctly present it as a simple statement of fact, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. To equivocate on this would be bending over backwards to accommodate an extremist fringe perspective far beyond neutrality and reliable sources. "Fake encyclopedia"... sure, good luck with that. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources are clearly not reliable, because they are presenting things that are false as factual. There is no evidence whatsoever provided in the source, nor does it exist anywhere else, that Taylor is a white supremacist. Simply put, he has never stated anything that is white supremacy. Stating that different races have different strengths and weaknesses is not white supremacy. You can't just misrepresent his views or change the definition of a word to fit what you want to be the truth and expect people not to object to your idiocy.
Twist it any way you want. Fake is fake. Lou Sander (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I've heard someone else use that word "fake" a lot lately; can't quite remember who it was though. I believe it was a prominent public figure, though. Rockypedia (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
And there it is. Your agenda on full display for all to see. You have no business editing wikipedia. This is not the place for you to exercise your liberal/leftist/SJW bias. Your denial of the necessity for dealing in fact, as opposed to misrepresentation of views, is rooted in your hypersensitivity to all things race-related and desire to mischaracterize everything as "racism" and "white supremacy," even when is factually is not (based on accepted definitions of the terms).
The term "fake encyclopedia" sounded familiar ... [7]. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me coming into this conversation but I must say that Lou Sander puts across a very good initial point. To term Jared as a "white supremacist" is unfairly representing his views. It is true that he is a white nationalist but to term him a "supremacist" makes out to the reader that he has a racist, white-centered ideology. As I say this doesn't fairly represent the guy. I have read very little of his article so don't have much else to comment on but surely anyone who has listened to Jared can clearly see that identifying him as a "supremacist" is completely unjust. I know there will be some who disagree but I believe that the opening line is very misleading to a new reader. Pingu4581 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What a surprise, an account that goes weeks, months (sometimes years) without activity suddenly wakes up and does two things: erases the edit-warring messages on his talk page, and one minute later comes to the Jared Taylor talk page to support the view of another editor that wishes to white-wash Taylor's description against consensus. So clever! You were so close to making me think that the current lead doesn't accurately reflect reliable secondary sources. Alas, it does. Rockypedia (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no question that the current lead accurately reflects reliable secondary sources. At least nobody here is saying that. The problem is that it uses Wikipedia's voice to state opinion as fact, which isn't exactly maintaining a neutral point of view. Lou Sander (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's just, like, your opinion, man. Rockypedia (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey mate Rockypedia (talk) don't distract the conversation. You clearly have a differing view point but to bring up that sketch about my edit war...just don't. You don't know what happened in that incident so let's cut from looking at flaws in contributors and start working on a fair solution to the disagreements about this page. No need to go off conversation, so why don't you stick to the matter at hand. Pingu4581 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you missed my point entirely? Okay, I'll spell it out plainly - You are a sockpuppet of another account. Your efforts to influence the arguments here by using multiple accounts will be ignored. Thanks anyway. Rockypedia (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe if you provided evidence to back up this ludicrous claim then I would listen to you. Just saying things doesn't make them a fact Pingu4581 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Samuel Jared Taylor... is an American white nationalist and white supremacist."[edit]

see comment in third template. Scroll wheel saver
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This statement lacks any citations. Please provide evidence that Mr. Taylor is in fact a "white nationalist" and a "white supremacist." Otherwise, these terms should be omitted.Dr. Manny T. Hanks 21:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talkcontribs)

References are located in the Views section. Jarkeld (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
All those references are opinions. Yet in the introduction, Wikipedia's voice states them as fact. Not quite the Neutral Point of View that the encyclopedia states as one of its pillars. Lou Sander (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Which ones are opinions? None of the references look like op-eds to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
They're not opinions, they're just flat-out lies. I hate to break it to you, but every media source is sometimes wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
they're just flat-out lies <--- Which you would know for sure and be able to provide verifiable sources as to the certitude of your claim because you have ascertained this information from... (Please affix sources below) Edaham (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z90KJWk3dPY (28:48) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have vpn access in my location in China atm so I can't watch that. I'm guessing though that it is a video of a white supremacist telling the world that everything is reasonable and that he's really a lovely guy. If that's a case then it's a primary source. That might be acceptable if....
  • 1) due weight is considered and
    2) its quoted in context in addition to, not instead of the reliable sources which exist already on this page
in this case though due weight coupled with the fact that it's a primary source probably suggests that this be excluded - if of course I correctly guessed as to its contents. If you understand the WP guidelines you'll probably use your own discretion and reject the source (unless you have a strong POV of course) Edaham (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
just watched it - its him talking about himself. The above stuff applies Edaham (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The primary source proves that the secondary source is not reliable. What part of that don't you understand? A secondary source alleging something to be so with zero evidence, in the face of proof that what said secondary source alleged is false, is no longer reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to understand it. Wikipedia doesn't work the way you want it to. You need to understand wp:primary wp:secondary wp:v wp:rs etc. When you've read and understood these requirements concerning the editing of the encyclopedia, you will arrive at different conclusions regarding the suitability of the source you've suggested for inclusion in the article. The only reasons you might keep putting forward the above arguments will be be if a)you don't read and understand the policies or b)you continue to push your point of view in spite of having understood them. Also, for the n'th time please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. Edaham (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you don't understand what the word "reliable" means. It does not mean, "source with a claim that has been proven false." The secondary source provides zero evidence for its claim. I could find a secondary source that says the moon is made of green cheese, and said source would be unreliable because it stated something factually false. Any source that alleges Taylor is a white supremacist is factually false. There is no quote in existence of Taylor espousing white supremacist views by any definition of the term (least of all wikipedia's). You are being deliberately obtuse. And stop telling ME what to do. It is YOU who is being despicably dishonest and YOU who should change your behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, the sentence alleging he is a white supremacist isn't even sourced AT ALL. No secondary source in sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The logic of thatis that is that we ignore any evidence about a group or individual and just take their word. Good way to empty the jails. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There is ZERO evidence that he's a white supremacist. Evidence that he's a white supremacist would be something that contains an actual quote of his proving he's a white supremacist. What are you trying to allege, that secondary sources are mind readers and know Taylor's own views better than he does? You can not take the word of a source that says a guy who has never espoused white supremacist views is a white supremacist. It proves the secondary source is unreliable - whoever wrote said source was factually mistaken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2017
please sign your posts with four tildes at the end of each post you make. Also please read some of the links I helped you look up on sourcing material for the encyclopedia. Also you aren't supposed to comment on the personal qualities of other editors when you discuss things on Wikipedia, so calling me obtuse for example, is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, which is one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia rests. I can see you are having trouble and I think that's because you jumped into a debate on a controversial issue before you understood the way things work around here. Don't worry! The links I posted in my previous reply to you will help you get started, as will the links in this post. Why not create an account and follow some of the welcome tips when doing so! Also just one more time; please remember to sign those posts! Happy editing! Edaham (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No. The only evidence Wikipedia cares about is from reliable source. There are many sources already included in the article. Taylor isn't a reliable source, and his views are extremist fringe positions. The only people who take him at his word are other racists in the same walled-garden of academic white supremacy. Wikipedia isn't part of that, we use reliable sources, instead. Taylor's self-description as a white [racial] [identitarian] [realist] [advocate] whatever is no more significant than any other trashy PR spin. Might as well call him a "job creator who provides world-wide race-based solutions". Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Show me a single source that contains proof of him being a white supremacist. Wikipedia itself defines white supremacy as, "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." Taylor has NEVER espoused any such viewpoint. Calling him a "white supremacist" does not make it so. A secondary source that makes a claim without a shred of evidence is not a reliable secondary source. Every single one of you have revealed yourself to be biased leftists who are letting your own biases dictate how you edit a website that is supposed to be neutral. You're not even trying to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rebranding (which needs its own article by now)[edit]

It's common knowledge that white supremacist organisations and individuals have been rebranding, some, eg David Duke, as long ago as the 80s. See for example [8] Mother Jones has an interesting analysis of this. The ADL's page on rebranding[9] specifically mentions Taylor calling him " the forerunner of the “suit and tie racists,” who couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Nice quote, maybe we should use it. I'm serious about the idea that Rebranding, maybe Rebranding the Right or something like that, is probably now notable enough for an article. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Now there's another totally unbiased website for you. The ADL...another minority advocacy group. Minority advocacy groups = "reliable secondary sources." White advocacy groups = "lying racists." You guys are so neutral and stuff. Oh, and "couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Translation: They don't say anything that is actually white supremacism, but I'm still offended by what they say, and I still wish to use the label "white supremacist" to stigmatize and discredit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
There's a pretty good NY Times article about it as well. I would say that getting even more specific, given the amount of info available, would be appropriate. Rebranding white supremacy, perhaps. Rockypedia (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this discussion is getting a bit tongue in cheek. I do think that the above proposals have a place in the white supremacy article. The rebranding issue is basically a cat and mouse game as racist groups keep renaming themselves as soon as the rest of society realizes that they're just the same bunch of neo-nazis as before, but now they have a new name, beards and combovers etc. It's worth a mention as it is happening, but I think it would be much more useful as a section in the article to which it is relevant. Also its probably time to stop antagonizing the editors who object to this page and close the threads as nothing is going to come of this discussion while people continually demand that unsourced modifications be made to the article, and we keep reply that they need sourced materials. I hope nobody objects. Edaham (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Rockypedia (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"... American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication."[edit]

Please provide citations to support the conjecture that the publication is "white supremacist." Otherwise delete "a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication." My own research indicates no such reference has been made to the magazine except this article in Wikipedia.Dr. Manny T. Hanks 21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talkcontribs)

The article about the publication, along with the sources to back up the text are to be found at American Renaissance. Nice to see you come out of editing retirement just to comment on this article. Jarkeld (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
"Dr. Many Thanks" ... that's cute! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Taylor is not a white supremacist[edit]

Listen to Mr Taylor clearly say he is not a white supremacist, starting at 28:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z90KJWk3dPY

Please rewrite the first paragraph to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.3.251 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its descriptions of article subjects on reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:SECONDARY for more on this. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Same video as the one two sections above. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"I completely reject the term white supremacy," - Jared Taylor http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/us/racist-incidents-college-campuses/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.173.238 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

see below: unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's looking like there isn't really a consensus that the first sentence is OK. Lotsa people objectin' to it. Might be time to change it, in spite of the strongly-held feelings and the maybe not always 100% cogent arguments of those who want to keep it. Lou Sander (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

says the editor who lept onto this article with a deceptive edit summary to remove sourced material and replace it with material designed to alter (favorbly) the tone of the article toward the subject. An explanation of the Wikipedian concept of consensus, which inspite of your years here you are failing to grasp (or are intentionally misapplying), can be found in the previous link or in even more depth here. Not included in that essay is the further clarification that consensus (or lack thereof) is definitely not determined by a fleet of single purpose accounts and ip editors turning up on a talk page without sources, refusing to acknowledge policy, making uncivil rants and generally refusing to accept the fact that their being here is an effort to join a team of voluntary editorial staff who put their opinions aside when it comes to sourcing content. For the benefit of those who actually are new and aren't pretending not to know how Wikipedia works; please state your proposal for modifying the lede using a change x to y format, citing a reliable secondary source. Edaham (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Lou Sander is very interested in making Jared Taylor seem like a nice mainstream fellow, who happens to believe that white skin means you're better than other people with darker skin. The deceptive edit summaries and the constant POV-pushing, as well as the false premise "Lotsa people objectin' to it" just tells me that he's not here to make Wikipedia better - he's here to whitewash Taylor's image. "lotsa people"? which people? start naming them. And then let's see their arguments that trump the reliable sources. Oh right - none of those things exist. Thanks for stopping by, Lou. I'd like to ask - what's your feelings on the supremacy of the white race? Rockypedia (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"who happens to believe that white skin means you're better than other people with darker skin." When did he say this? If you can provide a single quote from him saying this, I will dance naked in Times Square. All Taylor has ever said is that different races have different strengths and weaknesses, and he thinks diversity is a disaster, because as a group, different races do not get along with each other. You have provided ZERO reliable sources. The very first sentence for this wikipedia page - in which it is alleged he is a white supremacist (a false claim) - is unsourced. There isn't a source on the face of the earth with proof that he's a white supremacist or has ever stated views that qualify as white supremacist. Your evidence is, "well, I can read his mind and know his REAL thoughts." You're engaging in feelings instead of facts as a result of your leftist bias on a website that is supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The article has 38 references. I suggest you look through them. Also read WP:LEADCITE, where you'll learn about why citations aren't repeated in the lead when they're already in the body. Rockypedia (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked you to provide a single quote from him demonstrating he is a white supremacist; just one source proving this claim. You didn't do that, because you can't. Not one of the references contains any such thing. The claim in this article that Taylor is a "white supremacist" is factually false and you're spinning in circles trying to justify leaving something factually untrue in this article out of liberal agenda. You personally being offended by him saying that races have different strengths and weaknesses and diversity is a disastrous thing does not justify lying to misrepresent his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
What you asked me to do is irrelevant, because my opinion of Jared Taylor's stance on anything is irrelevent. As is yours. For an in-depth explanation of why this is the case, I encourage you to read WP:RS for information on what goes into Wikipedia articles. Get back to me after you have a comprehensive understanding of that page. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do you guys keep referring me to pages you clearly don't understand? Minority advocacy groups are not "reliable secondary sources" for Jared Taylor's views. It's factual to say that some people have accused Taylor of being a white supremacist. That's the only thing any sources here show. Not one of the sources proves he is a white supremacist, nor provides a shred of evidence for it. You are not supposed to state something as fact without proof. I agree with you that personal views are supposed to be irrelevant, yet here we are, with you blatantly trying to protect an unfounded claim being stated as if it were fact on this page because of your personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh and by the way - let's not forget Lou's sockpuppet history. Lotsa people objecting to the first sentence? How many, exactly? I feel a project for myself coming on. Like checking out multiple users' edit histories. My idea of fun, believe it or not. I'm eagerly anticipating. Rockypedia (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I touched a nerve somewhere. Sorry. Lou Sander (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If by nerves you mean project guidelines which others follow, but which you ignore when they stand in the way of garnering support for your point of view, then yes you have - on record and on several occasions. On the other hand you've also started hundreds of articles on the navy, singers and thinkers so thanks tremendously for those contributions. Perhaps you could encourage single purpose accounts on this talk page to show the same zeal in taking a wider view of the project. Edaham (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you looking to improve the encyclopedia, or provoke people so that you can crow about "touching a nerve"? Because I'm pretty fed up with the games that white supremacists play when they come to this page, pretending that their purpose is one thing, while seeking to bend and contort Wikipedia policy into a shape that will allow them to market Jared Taylor as something he's not. It's really obvious, and while other editors have more patience and grace than I have while dealing with you and your sockpuppets, I'm happy to point out your deception. You like Jared Taylor and his "whites-first" philosophy, fine, I get it. Go start your own encyclopedia where you can idolize him. This encyclopedia uses reliable secondary sources to describe him. You can accept that, or you can get lost. Rockypedia (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, YOU are the ones who are trying to market him as something he's not. None of us have said he's correct in his views on race. His views - that there are great differences between races, with different races having different strengths and weaknesses on average; that diversity is dangerous and leads to social unrest, and that racial identity is extremely important - are certainly open to debate. All of the studies he cites can be debated as to their legitimacy. However, the one thing that can NOT be debated is the fact that he is NOT a white supremacist, based on wikipedia's own definition of white supremacy. Or, at least, if you think he is keeping his "real" views secret, there is absolutely no proof he is. There is not a single thing showing he believes "that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." What can be shown, however, is that he has said that he believes the first part of that about EAST ASIANS, who are not white, and that he has repeatedly refuted the second part - he doesn't believe anyone should rule over anyone. He believes it is in each race's best interest to stick to associating with members of their own race, however he believes individuals should still be free to do what they want. He thinks that people will freely choose to segregate themselves; it's only forced diversity from policies that have been implemented that disrupt this natural phenomenon. And he wants to stop immigration to the United States, because he believes it is in white people's best interest to be able to maintain a predominantly white homeland in places where they have historically been predominately white (this DOES make him a "white nationalist," according to wikipedia's definition). He also says every other race has a right to maintaining their predominant race in their country, be it Asians, blacks, Hispanics, etc. The fact that these are the views he has openly expressed can be proven, and they do not fit wikipedia's definition for "white supremacy" (or any other definition for that matter). Your emotional, biased, strawman, leftist nonsense about how we're trying to say he's really a great guy, we're defending a white supremacist, blah blah blah, reveals that you shouldn't be editing an internet encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And of course racists always tell the truth, they never try to make their views look more acceptable. But we go by what independent (of him) sources say. Not our own interpretation. We can't just ignore those sources because he doesn't come out and say he thinks whites are better. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So if a source says something without providing a SHRED of evidence for the claim, this is sufficient for stating something as factual on wikipedia? The circular logic is ASTOUNDING. Your argument is literally, "we know he's a white supremacist because we think he's a white supremacist." You are asking us to prove he is NOT a white supremacist without a shred of evidence that he IS one. What's especially hilarious is your "sources" are all leftist internet "anti-fascist" websites; the equivalent to using a false description from Breitbart about a liberal politician and stating it as fact. Who do you think you're trying to fool here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yawn. They aren't anti-fascist websites, some are websites, others are also on paper. Tell you what, go to WP:RSN and make your arguement about the sources. We make it abundantly clear that he denies the charges, and you want us to remove all evidence that anyone disagrees with him. Oh, and we don't use our own definition of white supremacism because we don't use our articles as sources. And that one could certainly be improved. Interesting how you think that anyone who doesn't like racists must be left-wing. Wrong of course and pretty sad, but still interesting. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So now you are resorting to accusing me of "vandalism" because you can't substantiate your false claims? Tell me, how do you think protecting libel is going to affect wikipedia's donations this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you are mentioning what sounds like a legal case with reference to Wikipedia's income. Please do not use legal threats to alter the course of a debate on any of Wikipedia's pages. Edaham (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are. The very first source is to "Southern Poverty Law Center," which is a nonprofit civil rights group. Gee, what an unbiased source...a group that focuses on accusing people of being bigots for a living. How would I go about making my "arguement" about the sources? It has nothing to do with removing evidence that anyone disagrees with him; it's the fact that the page states that he IS a white supremacist as fact. It is not fact. There isn't a shred of evidence that he is. There is literally as much evidence that there's a unicorn living in Antarctica as there is that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. If you wanted to show that some people THINK he's a white supremacist, you would say, "some" or even "many" people accuse him of being a white supremacist. Alas, you're not interested in accuracy. What definition of "white supremacist" DO you use? The one you made up in your head as a pejorative to dismiss anyone with views you don't like? Oh, and also, in this article, the hyperlink for "white supremacist" takes you to - ta da - wikipedia's article with the definition I copy-and-pasted. You just keep digging yourselves in deeper and deeper. And no, I assume you're left-wing because your unabashed desire to censor the truth gives you away. Well, in this case, you're trying to censor CORRECTIONS on a LIE. You can't just leave it at him being a white nationalist whom many have criticized; you have to try to discredit him by lying about him. People of your ilk always try to brand people you disagree with with certain labels that carry huge stigma to overcome the fact that you don't have any facts or logic on your side. What's sad is that you don't realize that in doing this, you only push more and more people to further and further extremes opposing you. After all, if you're willing to libel people like this, what else are you lying about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Opening Sentence[edit]

not going anywhere. Continually demanding changes (for a week now) based on POV/primary sources is a defunct debate, which will waste hours of editing time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's try this again. Let's start from the beginning. For the opening sentence, "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist," what is your source (s) for the "white supremacist" part? Don't just tell me to look through all 38 references at the bottom. Tell me which link (s) you are using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See this talk page archive for a detailed discussion on this, as well as the specific sources used. And yes, if your interest in this article goes beyond making Taylor's image more mainstream by eliminating "white supremacist" from the lead, then I'm afraid you're going to have to do some real work, and go through the sources yourself. A lot more work than that was done by other editors in actually adding those sources, so there's no shortcuts available to someone that would simply like to redo the page in a way they like better. Rockypedia (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make his image more mainstream. I'm trying to say there is no evidence he is a white supremacist. Adding sources that don't show what you claim they do is the easiest thing in the world. You think that is more difficult than somehow doing a word-for-word analysis of each of the 38 sources at the bottom to show how they don't prove that he is a white supremacist? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Many editors work on this article and many sources support that Taylor is a white supremacist. Sources for the lede of an article are not, strictly speaking, required in all cases. The lede summarize the body of the article, and in most cases sources in the body are sufficient for content in the lede. Sources 5, 6, 7, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 37, and 38 of this revision are just some of those which support (either directly or indirectly) Taylor's status as a white supremacist. I'm sure more could be found if necessary, but the only people challenging this seem to those who are advocating for the most accommodating interpretation possible. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, it reflects the mainstream consensus in proportion to due weight.
Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or advocacy, adding even more redundant sources is not a productive use of anyone's time. Especially since, from past experience, they're likely to be dismissed as 'biased' or factually incorrect because they don't blindly accept Taylor's promotional claims at face value. Reliable, reputable academics are not expected to accept Taylor's extraordinary claims at face value. They are, instead, expected to question them and analyze them critically. And no, they don't always have to show their work when doing this. These sources have found that Taylor is far, far outside of the mainstream. His position embraces dehumanizing stereotypes without regard for accuracy or historical context. He consistently ignores contradictory evidence and replaces it with debunked pseudoscience. These problems make him a WP:FRINGE figure which is not considered credible, even for his own position.
So, his refutation of 'supremacist' doesn't carry much weight. There is also nothing contradictory between 'supremacist' and 'nationalist'. He can be both, and according to sources, he is both. Don't like what I'm saying? Okay, but that's how Wikipedia works. We have a fundamental mainstream bias. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with the claim that he is a white supremacist? Why do you keep talking about views outside the mainstream? "Views outside the mainstream" is not synonymous with "white supremacy." Nor is "fringe." "His position embraces dehumanizing stereotypes." Source? That's just your opinion using biased language. And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "He consistently ignores contradictory evidence." Source? And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "Debunked pseudoscience." Source? And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "Not considered credible." Who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist?
Now, let's go through the sources you named:
5. This is an opinion piece by Dennis Roddy. This does nothing other than prove that Dennis Roddy thinks he is a white supremacist. He provides no evidence for his claim. Nowhere in this article is there anything showing Taylor said or supports the belief that whites are superior and should therefore rule over other races.
6. This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit whose mission is to sue for discrimination of minorities. Not only is this a biased source, but it provides no evidence that Taylor said or supports the belief that whites are superior and should therefore rule over other races (white supremacy).
7. Book titled "The Myth of Race." Another biased source. Talks about Taylor having criticisms of blacks. Racism is not the same as white supremacy.
9. This source isn't even available.
21. Another article providing zero support for Taylor ever espousing views that whites are the superior race and should therefore rule over other races. One quote mentions him being critical of blacks. Again, being critical of blacks (which is a form of racism) is not the definition of white supremacy.
22. This article's "source" for him being a white supremacist was a link to #6 - the nonprofit whose mission is to sue people for discrimination of minorities.
23. Book on "Right-Wing Extremism." Again, a focus on Taylor being critical of black people, with nothing in there about him being a white supremacist.
24. WSJ: Requires subscription to read.
25. This is redundant - it's the same as source 23.
31. Another redundancy - this is source #6.
37. Page no longer there from another link to source #6.
38. This is sources 23 and 25. Linked 3 different times for 3 different pages in the same book, I guess. None of these pages show he's a white supremacist. And the Roddy article - source #5 - is actually quoted in this book.
All any of these sources prove is that some people think he's a white supremacist. This doesn't make it so. The definition of white supremacist isn't, "a person whom some others think believes such and such." It's a person who DOES believe such and such. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked for a source that shows he is a white supremacist. So far, nobody has provided one. I never said his refutation of being a white supremacist carries weight; I have said that his actual stated views not being white supremacy do. Of all the views that can be found that he has stated anywhere, not one of them falls under the definition of "white supremacy." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what just happened was, Grayfell provided you with a bunch of sources, and you dismissed them as coming from biased sources, or they came from a source you can't read, or you just plain didn't like them. None of those arguments are going to carry any weight. You're beating a dead horse at this point, and you refuse to understand, or just plain don't care, how Wikipedia works. If you want to start an online encyclopedia where you personally get to decide which sources should be included in each article, you're free to do that. At this encyclopedia, there is consensus that these sources are reliable, and your opinion of them is just that - your opinion. So since we're going in circles, I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Rockypedia (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
No, what happened is none of the sources provide proof of anything other than the fact that multiple people think he's a white supremacist. However, the first sentence on this article states that Taylor is a white supremacist as though it is fact. And I'm not sure how you think there is "consensus" of anything. Oh wait, I do; you just dismissed all the other users who disagree with you. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
As I predicted, the IP is dismissing sources which don't accept Taylor at his word, and is instead demanding original research. Regardless of his pet names for them, Taylor's positions are 100% compatible with and supportive of white supremacy. This is according to the only sources Wikipedia cares about. We absolutely do not care about boutique definitions of white supremacy which allow his fans to paint him in a more flattering light. Expecting other editors to find comments he has made which support convenient personal definitions of white supremacy is multiple kinds of wrong. Repeating that demand is, at this point, either foolish or disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, you refuse to actually acknowledge what I am saying. I already told you I have no interest in taking Taylor at his word that he is not a white supremacist. What I am interested in is the fact that none of Taylor's words - in any of his speeches, books, website writings, etc. - indicate he is a white supremacist. At least, none that have ever been provided here. You have yet to provide proof that he is a white supremacist, yet it is stated as fact on this page. Please show me a definition of white supremacy where anything Taylor has ever said fit said definition. Go ahead and use any definition from any website you can find; the definition I was using was wikipedia's own definition. And again, when you talk about "painting him in a flattering light," you're giving away YOUR agenda; that being that you are afraid of painting him in a less unflattering light, so you will go to great lengths to avoid telling the truth because you're afraid others won't see him as negatively. Wikipedia is not supposed to be liberal propaganda. I am not dismissing the sources, I am telling you that the sources do not prove anything other than the fact that some people think he is a white supremacist. Do you understand how "proof" works, and why it is important in ascertaining statements of "fact" in an encyclopedia? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is multiple kinds of wrong. Digging through his own speeches, websites, etc. would be original research. How else can this be said? We don't do original research. We use reliable sources, instead. The people who "think" he's a white supremacist are more reliable than he is, or than we are as Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion anymore than you care about my opinion. Your opinion that nothing he's said proves he's a white supremacist doesn't matter. We care about what reliable sources say he is. That is how good tertiary sources, like encyclopedias, work. Taylor is a white supremacist according to reliable sources. Proof is for researchers. This isn't a platform for that kind of research. Grayfell (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, so it's not up to us. But it IS up to THEM. A reliable secondary source would contain the proof. You know, someone else doing the research. Alas, none of those sources justify their assertion. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." In this case, common sense tells us that the people who wrote these things didn't go through the process of looking up the definition of "white supremacy" in various dictionaries and then identifying something Taylor said that fit under the definition of white supremacy, hence they made a lazy assumption. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
My common sense is telling me that the people who wrote these things did go through the process of looking up the definition of white supremacy... what now? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You honestly believe that? You really think most members of the media/anti-discrimination groups are that careful? That they know something that nobody else here does about things Taylor has said at some point that fit the definition of "white supremacy," which they looked up, and that they didn't just make lazy assumptions based on his background as a white nationalist and their own low (and inaccurate) requirement to brand somebody or something "white supremacist," never bothering to crack open a dictionary? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Experts on discrimination are understood to be using a valid definitions of terms closely connected to discrimination. Dismissively calling them lazy and similar is not a valid reason to challenge that. These sources are more reliable than you are. Your contempt for "media/anti-discrimination groups" is obvious, but that's not Wikipedia's problem. Again, we don't care what about individual prior assumptions or personal opinions at all. You appear to have already decided all of these many sources aren't trustworthy, but have offered absolutely nothing in support of that decision, nor, realistically, could you. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There is no where left for you to go with this discussion if you have already rejected reliable sources just because you don't agree with their conclusions. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Experts on discrimination? You mean people who make their money off suing for it - and sometimes fail - are experts? What's next, are you going to use the words of a prosecutor to assume the guilt of someone who was accused of a crime? And the majority of the sources are just opinion columnists who have nothing to do with racial studies. Many of these same sources accuse Donald Trump of being a racist. Why doesn't the first sentence of Trump's wikipedia page say he is racist? I think we both know why; because wikipedia's viewership would be toast if you pissed off so many people by claiming that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Uh huh. Out of curiosity, which source used in this article says that Trump is a racist? Again, if you've already decided that reliable sources are unusable because you don't like them, you're wasting your time. Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Just look up anything the Southern Poverty Law Center (cited several different times here) has written about him. You'll be there all night. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
really think this is a distraction for everyone. Whilst I can think of plenty of replies, as can the other editors here, it's a clear waste of what basically amounts to working hours. This, and other discussions like it have reached a consensus. Wikipedia requires secondary sources in BLPs. The opposition to this will not bear fruit in the form of changes to article text which is sourced to the hilt. If the opposing editor wants use the primary source to talk about (in a single sentence) the view of the subject of this article, we should consider it for inclusion in an appropriate section, not the lead, and with due weight given to the reams of material, which states that he's a white supremacist. Edaham (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

Here's an article from 1994 in which Taylor is referred to by the Washington Post as an expert in race relations. When was the media right, then or now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks right on point!
  • Even worse -- according to Jared Taylor, a race-relations expert and author from Louisville -- Osby's assailants were young black men, whom Taylor called "the most dangerous people in America." Taylor, a white man, plans to testify at the trial that he interprets FBI statistics to show that black males are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group separated by age, race and gender.
The source, in that is relevant to this article, seems to characterize Taylor as a person who holds the unabashedly racist view point that all young black men in America are potentially dangerous. That being said, I think there's definitely something we could use from this text in the wp article. What exactly were you proposing to add, or would you like me to have a go? On a tangential note thanks for this contribution, I hope you can continue to help with the Herculean effort of trawling for sources that make the encyclopedia what it is. Edaham (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that you've started contributing sources as opposed to simply debating points of view on talk pages, do you think you'll also start signing your posts too? Edaham (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Of note;
  • this link verifies the first source and clarifies that it was the defense who called him forward as a witness. This may also be of relevance. Edaham (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 ive added information from the sources you supplied to his career section Edaham (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What I was trying to show is that the media, aka "reliable secondary sources," used to regard him differently. Taylor always points out that he means "on average," and is talking in generalities. He has consistently argued that, on average, blacks are far more dangerous than other races based on data. I don't think the data is so much in dispute, but rather the interpretation of it. He argues it's genetic, others argue it's either socioeconomic or racism in the criminal justice system. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Those points are good, but they go beyond the scope of what's written in the text you supplied. As you can see, when I added the excerpt to the article, I just neutrally added more or less exactly what was written about him, in the relevant section, without synthesizing anything or adding my own editorial commentary. Edaham (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

Topics for RS notice board - now being discussed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As you know, I brought up the dubious nature of using SPLC as a "reliable secondary source" for trying to prove Taylor is a white supremacist. Well, here's an interview video about Maajid Nawaz suing them for defamation of character, since they listed him on their website as an anti-Muslim extremist. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

#1 We don't know what you've brought up, because you are only identified by an IP address, and numerous people could be using that same address to post all over Wikipedia.
#2 What specific changes are you suggesting be made to this article based on the content in that Youtube video? Rockypedia (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
not the place to talk about reliability of sources - This isn't the place to argue about the veracity of sources which have been included per consensus. If you think there is something wrong with using a particular source, this is done at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In this case, before you open a discussion there you should check the archives as this topic has been covered numerous times. The overwhelming consensus on each of these occasions was that the SPLC are biased, however they are very well known and as such lend (or transfer) notability to the subject they accuse. That's why they are considered reliable, not because their opinions are right, but because they are very notable and warrant inclusion. Also a part of consensus resulting from these discussions is that sometimes they make radical claims and that their comments be appropriately attributed and verified by additional sources - both of which have been done in this particular case. Edaham (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, so one step at a time. Would you agree that if the only source alleging Taylor was a white supremacist was SPLC, you would consider that not enough to classify him as one? Otherwise, of course, you would be justified in calling Maajid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist on the page for him (and from what I've read, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali as well). Remember, SPLC is a law group that earns their money on filing discrimination lawsuits for things they believe could net them money. However, they do not get to decide the outcome of the cases they bring, and lawsuits are frequently thrown out for a lack of evidence. Lawyers making allegations is not proof. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the slate.com article written by Martin Gelin's sentence calling him a white supremacist is a hyperlink to the SPLC, meaning the SPLC is their source. Many of these sources alleged to be different actually circle back around to the same sources as their source. The book from Stephen Atkins, which is cited several times: His source is, once again, the SPLC (the quotation about him being the "intellectual, cultured, and cosmopolitan face of white supremacy" comes from the SPLC). The book also quotes the Dennis Roddy article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is another source on this article; the Roddy piece, by the way, ALSO quotes the SPLC (specifically Mark Potok from the SPLC) for the "face of white supremacy" quote. They're all sourcing the same people - the SPLC. You'd better think long and hard about the SPLC as a reliable source, because if you don't have them, it all falls apart. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"It all falls apart" - that's a nice opinion, and completely made-up and pulled out of thin air, based on... what? A hyperlink to the SPLC in one article? A link that doesn't even mean the author is citing the SPLC, but merely providing a link to another website that explains Taylor's white supremacist views more deeply. You're really reaching now. Time to drop the stick, I think. Horse is well past dead. Rockypedia (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Every last one of the sources calling him a white supremacist is either the SPLC's web page or citing the SPLC as their source for this. You're relying on the words of lawyers whose job it is to make accusations against people, whether they're true or not. Again, did you not read the "common sense" part on the "reliable sources" page? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"Every last one of the sources calling him a white supremacist is either the SPLC's web page or citing the SPLC as their source for this." That's flat-out incorrect. So either you didn't actually go through every source, in which case your opinions based on that statement are worthless, or you know that it's incorrect and you're just lying. Either way, I think we're done here. Rockypedia (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you are willing to deny that a hyperlink for the only sentence in an article referring to the guy as a "white supremacist" is citing the SPLC as its source, it's obvious I'm wasting my time. You have an agenda, which has been clear from day 1. Just so you know, though: If you want to discredit someone, it's far more effective not to misrepresent what they say. The people who support these views will see right through this and it will backfire. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No one here is interested in discrediting anyone, so your lesson in how to get that accomplished seems to be one that only you are focused on. As in, discrediting multiple reliable sources that are used in this article. Perhaps you should take your own advice about what things will backfire on you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You're interested in discrediting Taylor, however you don't have the facts to do it, so you resort to clinging to blatantly unreliable sources like gospel. Anyone who reads this talk page can see how politically charged the garbage you and others have written on here is. "I'm sure he's just a nice guy who happens to think people with darker skin are inferior to people with lighter skin." "Fake encyclopedia? Reminds me of someone else who calls everything fake." Blah blah blah. Southern Povery Law Center and Mother Jones good, reliable secondary sources... Breitbart, bad. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Southern Povery Law Center and Mother Jones good, reliable secondary sources... Breitbart, bad. Yes, that's exactly right! Finally you're getting it. Taylor's pseudo-intellectualism does a better job of discrediting him than we ever could. Sources just allow us to share that conclusion here. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
What if all the other sources making this claim about Taylor are discredited in some way as well? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, "biased" doesn't mean "wrong". For this article on Taylor, the SPLC is supported by many other sources, and is explicitly contradicted by almost none.
This American Conservative article by Scott McConnell is an interesting example of a politically conservative view of Taylor. It suggests that Taylor's points from the 1990s about immigration were worth considering, sort of, but not because he was correct, merely because he represented white anxiety bubbling to the surface. It also calls his views horrific, simplistic, and unsupported by any evidence. This and many other sources demonstrate that this isn't a simple left vs. right issue. We do not actively split reliable sources by ideology, but even if we did, the result would be largely the same. The American Conservative article is also useful for another point. McConnell mentions in passing that it was a fax from the ADL that prompted him to look further into Taylor's views. Among other things, groups like the ADL and SPLC provide information to journalists and the public as part of their mission. This is just one part of why they are so important- because journalists listen to them. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that article doesn't call him a white supremacist, though. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
He's not a can of soup. He doesn't need to have the ingredients written on each time he's packaged. Edaham (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

New Section Title[edit]

I've seen my share of attack pages and coatracks, but this one takes the cake. The way this BLP is presented is an embarrassment to the project. What exactly is going on? WP is not a soapbox, or advocacy or a place to right great wrongs. Editors need to pay attention and realize the blatant BLP and NPOV violations will result in some editors getting TB. If you are not familiar with what NPOV looks like in a controversial article, I suggest that you read Charles Manson and Hitler. Atsme📞📧 02:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In your haste you forgot to give your post a section title, which I have done. Your wiki-lawyering and wiki-shaming is misplaced. The lede which was in place before you altered it was written in good faith based on numerous sources and through the efforts of many editors on both (or neither) side of the fence. There are undoubtedly people who have more than editorial accuracy in mind when approaching this article. This is natural. Your hyperbole about topic bans and so on is an effort to undermine the work of good-faith editors using scare tactics. There's an enormous wealth of sources from channels which would be reliable in most circumstances, which say he's a supremacist, nationalist and so on. Editors wrote the article based on this. The continually thrown pitch that the SPLC is the only source on which this article relies is simply false and telling editors that they have committed some kind of infraction in this respect is gaming. Let's stick to just finding sources and including them in articles and leave out the emotional references to violations, Hitler, etc... Edaham (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources on "white supremacist"[edit]

I spent a few minutes looking and found numerous sources which describe Taylor as:

  1. "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists"
  2. a "well known white supremacist/seperatist,"
  3. a "Virignia White Supremacist,"
  4. a "major force in white supremacist circles,"
  5. "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement.
  6. "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist"
  7. and "a prominent white supremacist"

There are many more sources like this out there, that's just all that I can be bothered to link at the moment. That is all. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have already advised you to read what source is cited for those claims - SPL, that's who. Furthermore, people calling people names in a single sentence doesn't make it FACTUAL. They are opinions - learn the difference. You cannot use opinion in WP voice. What is wrong with you? I have asked you to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and you have ignored me. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you or anyone else. I've already given the required warnings. Now I'm going to get some sleep, and complete what needs to be done tomorrow. Atsme📞📧 04:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix is completely correct. A huge number of sources (including multiple books published by academic presses) explicitly describe Taylor as a white nationalist or supremacist. Many of the sources use these descriptions without relying on or citing to the SPLC. I have added some of the most useful sources (in a citebundle) to reflect this:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[1] and white supremacist.[2]

References

  1. ^
    • Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream (Farrar, Straud and Giroux, 2009), p. 370 & 427: "Taylor began his public foray into the white nationalist arena with a newsletter he edited called American Renaissance... Taylor, by eschewing conspiracy mongering and what they called 'paramilitary infantilism,' gave white nationalism greater potential access to the conservative mainstream."
    • Roxanne Lynn Doty, The Law Into Their Own Hands: Immigration and the Politics of Exceptionalism (University of Arizona Press, 2009), p. 61: "One of the more prominent members of the new white nationalism is Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance."
    • Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 121: "White nationalist Jared Taylor had this to say..."
    • Eric J. Sundquist, King's Dream (Yale University Press, 2009), p. 79: "the white nationalist Jared Taylor"
  2. ^
    • Elizabeth Bryant Morgenstern, "White Supremacist Groups" in Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (ed. Kathleen R. Arnold: Greenwood/ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 508: "Jared Taylor is the editor of the American Renaissance magazine, a publication that espouses the superiority of whites. ... Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic..."
    • Michael Newton, White Robes and Burning Crosses: A History of the Ku Klux Klan from 1866 (McFarland, 2014), p. 216: "Virginia white supremacist Jared Taylor"
    • Jonathan Mahler, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, New York Times (March 1, 2016), p. A15: "Jared Taylor, long one of the country's most prominent white supremacists."

This should put the correctness of the white nationalist/supremacist description in this article beyond all doubt. Taylor has been known as a white nationalist/supremacist for 25+ years. That is what he is known for. As the sources plainly show, it is at the core of his notability. Neutralitytalk 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is easily sourced to academic scholars. Very concerning a long time editor doesn't recognize this......is there more that should be reviewed?--Moxy (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality, I don't have access to the books you cited so I can't see the cited pages, the footnotes, bibliography or references. But no, it doesn't convince me beyond all doubt, and I'll explain why based on what I do know. All but a one or two of the cited sources I was able to access happen to reference SPL, and we've already established that SPL is not a RS for this purpose. I refer you to WP:NEWSORG, and WP:BIASED which may well include some of the scholarly publications you listed. I'm not saying opinions or biased sources cannot be cited or used with inline text attribution, rather what I am saying is that we cannot say it in Wiki voice, and that is what I consider non-compliant. The lead of this BLP states matter of factly "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" in Wiki voice and that is what I'm disputing along with all the other inappropriate claims that are not sourced to a RS. If you'll look back at my edits in the edit summary, you will see the parts I removed and hopefully you will also see that my removal was indeed justified based primarily on the sources. I am confident that the edits I made follow inline with both BLP, NPOV and V.
Opinion is still opinion, and conflicts of interest make a source questionable per WP:REDFLAG: challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]; While still reciting V, neutrality is policy: Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. I stand by what I said here and here, and I am confident that my edits were compliant with the policies I mentioned, and that as this BLP stands now, it is blatantly non-compliant with BLP. Atsme📞📧 07:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias[edit]

Other sources

All of these sources cannot be just parroting SPLC without critical thinking on their part, can they? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the policies I've pointed to, what I'm actually challenging, and in particular, pay attention to opinion vs fact because if you will read the very 1st source you cited, it states clearly "His critics have classified him...." yada yada yada - in other words, OPINION, not fact. When statements are disputed they are not fact and should not be stated in Wiki voice as fact. Atsme📞📧 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll have to come up with a more viable suggestion than your last proposal then. By attributing SPLC prominently in the lede, the way you worded it before could give the impression that they are his main, or only critic. Such is not the case. Can you formulate another proposal? Edaham (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources I was able to verify that didn't require a subscription to access a paywall, or a 60 mi RT to a metropolitan library have cited SLP and other sources that have cited SLP. My "proposal" remains the same - the article is noncompliant with BLP, NPOV, and V by stating opinion as fact, and it doesn't matter one iota if those opinions are in tertiary sources, RS that are biased, or RS that actually pass as a RS - we can't state derogatory opinions as statements of fact in WP voice. Atsme📞📧 13:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you might be able to remind us what the consensus was last time. Edaham (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

  • I'll start what I'm going to say here by acknowledging that I became aware of this discussion because I watch Atsme's talk page. I've read the discussions here and at RSN. It appears to me that the sourcing for calling him a white nationalist and white supremacist is overwhelming. It also seems to me that we should attribute these characterizations to the source material. Looking at the page, I think the issue is the most acute for the lead sentence. I think that Atsme's edits went too far in watering down the lead, but also that the lead can be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone, leaning partway in the direction of what she was trying to accomplish. It's pretty typical for a BLP lead sentence to emphasize what the subject does, as opposed to how they are characterized. I suggest making it something like:
Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been widely described as a white nationalist and white supremacist.
I've probably got the "activist, writer, and editor" part not quite right, but I think you can see what I'm trying to suggest. It does not "bury the lead", because it still makes it very clear what he really is, but it also takes the characterization out of Wikipedia's voice. I hope this helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're closer to nailing it than anything I've seen yet, Tryptofish. The derogatory terms should not be the primary lead-in summarizing a BLP's entire life/body of work, rather it should follow who the man is as a human being (BLP) and then note what others have characterized him as per inline text attribution. I would also recommend that because it is a contentious label likely to be challenged time and time again, that it be cited to a RS with inline text attribution in the lead and properly stated with more detail in the body of the article cited to a few more RS. Atsme📞📧 00:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"widely characterized" or "widely known as" etc, are answers to my criticism, that if you solely attribute the SPLC as being a critic who applies the label white supremacist, then you make it look like he only has one critic. This new suggestion contains weasel words. Widely described firstly, is not the kind of language we use and secondly, he's not "described as" a white supremacist. He is one. Beyond his academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power, there's no other thing which makes his entry into Wikipedia notable enough for inclusion. Edaham (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at this very carefully (saw the previous edit on Recent changes), but "as a human being" isn't really what we do. Some people are notable cause they're singers, some cause they're the PM on Australia, and some because they're white supremacists, which is apparently what this guy is. I don't rightly see what the problem is if the sources are decent--it's not a derogatory term, really; if one thinks it is, one probably shouldn't be one, no? Drmies (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, he's not. At least there's no proof that he is. I know, I know..."reliable secondary sources." Here's the thing: There is nothing he has said or written that fits any dictionary definition of white supremacy. I can guarantee that any source that claimed he was a white supremacist did one of the following for their "fact checking": Either, A. Googled it and parroted other sources, most likely either the SPLC's description of him, or the ADL's, or B. Read some of his stuff from somewhere and used the term without knowing what the term actually means, thinking it's synonymous with "this sounds racist to me." Racism is not synonymous with white supremacy. White supremacy is a specific type of racist; a racist who believes whites are the superior race and should rule over other races. Taylor has espoused no such views, and he has espoused views directly in contradiction to that (Asians are superior to whites in both intelligence and lower crime rates, etc., and he doesn't believe anyone should rule over anyone, but he believes each race has a right to an area where they are the majority). "Promote white power"...what do you mean by this? And do you think promoting "black power" is "black supremacy?" 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Your failure to understand, or insistence on purposefully refusing to understand how we put articles together from sources puts you way out of your depth in this debate. Everyone who exists within a public sphere has critics. The notability of a selection of those critics makes them valid sources for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Speculating as to how those valid sources retrieved their information does absolutely nothing to support your wish to exclude those sources from the article, not does it support your ensuing original research, which begins with you talking about, Racism is not synonymous with.... As for your question, you must be joking, right? A tangential herring to throw this into a forum style debate of the subject. Not what we are talking about and highly disruptive. Edaham (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You really have no clue what you're talking about. You don't actually comprehend the "reliable secondary sources" page, which is what I have been saying from the very beginning. There is a section in there about "common sense." Common sense in this case dictates that you consider the context in which the source makes its claim. A claim from a source that actually supports its claim with, say, a direct quote, is a reliable source. If a source showed a quote of Taylor's that espoused views consistent with the definition of white supremacy, you would have your reliable secondary source. Alas, you do not. Besides, you said "beyond his academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power, there's no other thing which makes his entry into Wikipedia notable enough for inclusion." Academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power are not white supremacy. You and numerous other posters are the ones who generate this off-topic response from me because you reveal time and again that you do not understand what "white supremacy" means. You keep talking about things like "outside the mainstream" and "racism" and "extremism," none of which are the same thing as white supremacy. That's not "original research." I have a reliable source for that information. It's called the dictionary. Stick to the subject: You think you can call him a white supremacist because you think you can take sources' word for it. He only "is" a white supremacist in the eyes of some of the media. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You and numerous other posters are the ones who generate this off-topic response from me ~ I had no idea my influence was so strong. I apologize. In future I'll try to only use my powers for good. Edaham (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, of course, with Edaham. I absolutely oppose this as well. "Widely described as" is WP:WEASEL and frankly waters down the sources. If we want to say "Jared Taylor is a white nationalist and white supremacist writer and activist" that would be fine with me. But this "widely described as" stuff is poor writing and improper distancing from the sources. If the sources say that he is a white nationalist/supremacist — and they do, overwhelmingly — that is what we also say. Neutralitytalk 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see the concerns about the wording having an improper distancing effect. Perhaps "is widely considered to be" would be stronger. I don't think that "widely" is weaselly so long as there are inline cites for the statement, that show the multiplicity of sources. I think that editors who see as insufficient anything that doesn't make it a declarative statement in Wikipedia's voice should consider that this still does have the effect of declaring him as what he is, right there in the first sentence, but presents it as a determination that has been made by the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than by editors, and that does not make it poor writing. But I'm no fan of this person, and I'm not going to push the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
While there are (possibly) BLP concerns that justify weasel-words for "white supremacist", there's definitely no reason to use them for "white nationalist". "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and white nationalism activist." may be sufficient for the lede sentence, the phrase "white supremacist" can be later in the paragraph as a compromise? Power~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's get this clear, we aren't looking for a compromise between what's been written about him and the views of his sympathizers. We are looking for an accurate article. This man, according to sources, exists within and helps to define the modern face of white supremacy. Part of that promotional effort (as has always been the case) is to come up with softening terms to help win support and make the ideas that they promote seem more mainstream. The current version of the article gets this point across very well and with no editorial synthesis of information. No compromise is required to make this article more digestible to people who buy into the re-branding activities, which have become popular among the far-right. Edaham (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: This is an encyclopedia that operates based on consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: It is. And what you are going to find is that consensus veers away from proposals which seek to "tone" down articles in order to appease special interest groups (or anyone for that matter) who want to make it adhere more closely to their view points. Edaham (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What about putting the editor/author stuff up from and then using "best known as an advocate of white supremacy/white nationalism"? It still makes the subjectivity clear, but maybe it makes it sound a little less like we're suggesting that this is a misconception.There appear to be no mainstream sources that actually contest those labels, and lots of sources that use them. Nblund talk 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    You can say he's an American white supremacist activist and editor, or a writer who writes white supremacist literature. You can't call him an author who has been widely described as a white supremacist in the same way you couldn't, at the risk of supplying more fuel to this debate by analogizing, call "Albert Camus" an author, widely described as an existentialist. He doesn't get to decide that category or the source of its attribution and neither do we. The source of those attributions are clear, they come from his readers, critics and those who put books onto shelves. He disapproved of that categorization, yet if you pop over to his Wikipedia article, in the info box, the word is right there. His objections are also noted. He's dead, but the same situation applies to numerous cases of living authors. White supremacy isn't a slur term by definition. It's a slur term because the people to whom it applies are disparaged for their hateful viewpoints. White supremacy is a category. It's a category into which this author and editor and activist fits - along with a wealth of sources to demonstrate this. Removing that information from his description, or misattributing it as a slur used by his detractors is removing info from the article and making it more vague. The only reason anyone would want to do this is to support the subject of this article by distancing him from a term which many people revile. Edaham (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies...he is notable as a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Statement of fact: he is associated with a magazine that reverse discrimination opinions consider white supremacy. See the example I used from the Britannica article about the ADL. Liken it to the way some religious groups may consider Penthouse a magazine of filth founded by the devil himself, while others consider it art - it's opinion. How do we describe it in the lead - that it's a filthy magazine with pictures of shameless naked women in compromising positions? Do we describe the founder as the devil himself? Of course not! Those words are not used and neither should labels like white supremacist which is a derogatory term the guy vehemently denies. WP PAGs are very clear about how we should handle contentious labels and that includes "racist" - see WP:TERRORIST. There should not be an argument over the terminology if we're following WP:PAG, so what exactly are we doing here? IAR in a BLP because the guy is hated by some editors? I could understand it if our policies and guidelines were ambiguous in this situation, but they are not - they are very clear. Atsme📞📧 11:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Atsme--potatoes, potatoes... BTW someone calls Penthouse "art"? That's news to me, but I never had a subscription. Ha, somewhere in this discussion suggests that "black power" should be treated the same as "white power"--we have truly elevated false equivalency to where it operates universally. If al "xxxx power" is the same... Drmies (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Drmies, I think they still call Penthouse Penthouse, and off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that one can't question, can you? Now you've confused me...???...all this time, I thought white power was Clorox. I need to get out of the house more. Me thinks I don't agree with your take on "false equivalency" (if I'm understanding you correctly), particularly that it's universal. It actually depends on where you're from and how you were raised. Think about that for a minute...🤔😘 Atsme📞📧 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
AGAIN...WP PAGs are very clear about how we should handle contentious labels and that includes "racist" - see WP:TERRORIST. There should not be an argument over the terminology if we're following WP:PAG, so what exactly are we doing here? IAR in a BLP because the guy is hated by some editors? It doesn't matter if tertiary sources, news media, or books have published their opinions - they are not facts - the sky is blue is a fact, color television has been invented is a fact, the earth rotates on its own axis is a fact. Calling or labeling someone a racist is an OPINION, and that is a fact. Atsme📞📧 12:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Your argument seems to have subtly shifted so I want to make sure we're still talking about the same thing - are you now arguing that he should not be directly described as a racist in the lead? Because, of course, he is not described as a racist in the lead. Rockypedia (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
the current (uncompelling) argument is based on the idea that white nationalist is derogatory in the manner of terms like cult, terrorist etc. Firstly it's not. Secondly the policy you are quoting recommends discretion, which has been duly exercised (over a very lengthy period of discussions) in this case. Edaham (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Having just stumbled on this page yesterday, it sure looks to me like there are editors who have placed themselves into such antagonistic camps that they are telling one another that they are refusing to understand or have no clue. But if one really cuts through all the WP:Battleground stuff, all that is really at issue is whether we call him a white nationalist and white supremacist in Wikipedia's voice, or say that sources call him those things.
Now it seems to me that we have plenty of sourcing to establish that he is a white nationalist, and he is a white supremacist. I've read all the arguments about the sourcing being inadequate, and I'm unpersuaded. And it's not a hatchet job to call him those things. It's a well-sourced statement of... not fact, really, but mainstream source consensus. I've seen a lot of suggestions about other ways of getting words like "writer" or "activist" into the lead sentence, but that misses the point. It's not important to simply find ways to include his work areas, but whether or not we call him a nationalist/supremacist in Wikipedia's voice.
So I see the issue as finding a balance between WP:WEASEL, because we shouldn't use overly vague language over something that is so well-sourced, and WP:TERRORIST, because there are differences between opinion and fact that become particularly important in the context of WP:BLP. And hey folks, look: WEASEL and TERRORIST are adjacent to one another on the same guideline page! What a coincidence! So it shouldn't be a matter of going only with one of them or only with the other. They exist in balance. I think that the balance ends up (largely because of the importance of BLP) on the side of treating the nationalist and supremacist characterizations as attributed instead of in Wikipedia's voice, but your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts."~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I think that quote says it all. Opinions do not become facts simply because 1,000 sources state an opinion (and chances are, if you'll check the sources they cite in their respective footnotes/bibliographies, you'll find SPLC or ADL somewhere. The BLP itself provides no convincing evidence that Taylor is a white supremacist, a Klansman, Nazi or skin head. An advocate of the Caucasian race, perhaps? How about white freedom fighter?[FBDB] "Nationalist" has already been changed to represent something entirely different from what it was actually intended to mean before MSM and scholars got a hold of it, so WP's use of terminology changes as fast as, or faster than MSM's. Perhaps the following quote noted by SPLC explains some of what's going on: “Warfare is eminent,” the SPLC quoted the website, “and in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites — more than our Christian hearts can possibly count.” Cited to [10] Show me where in Ayo Kimathi the guy is called a black supremacist. No, he's described as a "21st-century Black freedom-fighter". Everything he has said, done, and attempted to do spells out who and what he is - unambiguously - yet, we're over here fighting over labeling this dude a white supremacist? It's like calling a Chihuahua a Great Dane. I sure as hell hope WP hasn't stooped that low - but then, there's this. Atsme📞📧 21:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with the lead sentence in Dylann Roof? Rockypedia (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll answer by asking you if you have a problem with the lead sentence in Hitler? The encyclopedia has to maintain some form of consistency - we are advised (wisely) to pattern after GAs and FAs; the latter having undergone painstaking scrutiny...worse than a root canal!!! Atsme📞📧 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't have a problem with the lead sentence in Hitler, because he is notable for a list of so many things that it would be ridiculous to put "white supremacist" ahead of about 20 other things he's notable for. I'll ask you again, since you avoided the question entirely: Do you have a problem with the lead sentence in Dylann Roof? Rockypedia (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I know nobody will go for this, but how about "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American anti-diversity author and spokesperson?" That is literally what he is and it's what he's notable for. It's why he's maligned in the media - he openly argues that diversity is bad and wants to do away with policies promoting it in the United States. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason no one will "go for this" is that it's not in a single reliable secondary source. Rockypedia (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Rockypedia, I think Tryptofish nailed it with his suggestion...Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been widely described as a white nationalist and white supremacist. THAT is a fact. Atsme📞📧 21:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. When many reliable sources give an 'opinion' on something stated as a fact, that's a valid reason to look closer. Presenting something as an opinion just because people disagree with it, or because it contains subjective components, doesn't make it meaningfully an opinion. To equivocate on this would be to cast doubt on many reliable sources in favor of Taylor's self-serving PR and evasiveness. Taylor is choosing language based not on accuracy, but on what would be the least offensive to a chosen audience. The fundamental ideas he conveys are recognized by sources as supremacist. Wikipedia isn't a platform for buzzwords, ad-speak, or euphemisms, and this is no different. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? Show me that policy, please Grayfell. I've listed all of the PAGs that support my argument - perhaps I missed the one you're referring to. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:WEASEL, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Be specific and stop inundating us with BS links that generalize. Cite the words in the policy that support your position. I say all of the ones you cited oppose your position. Furthermore, see the following article and keep in mind the following article from the Guardian. Enjoy! Atsme📞📧 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
UTC)
...yeah, or don't. @Atsme: : There is a route you could take which worked really well in getting perceived negativity removed from the press and from Wikipedia. The media was very generous in its coverage of Derek Black when he renounced white supremacy and actively began countering it in a public forum. Perhaps you (possibly being familiar with the subject of this article) could have a word with him and get him to follow suit. I'll try to be the first to revise this page when the "facts" about him change. Btw - last two links there: WP:NOTFORUM Edaham (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WTF? Edaham you are treading on thin ice by even insinuating that I am familiar with this guy. Continue that kind of behavior and what little time you've invested as an editor on WP will more than likely be short lived. Atsme📞📧 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"what little time you've invested as an editor on WP will more than likely be short lived" Atsme, you've been an editor on Wikipedia more than long enough to know that that's a threat, that's not allowed, and your extra insinuation that his opinion is less valid because of his "little time" on Wikipedia can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, or a threat or both - probably because that's exactly what it is. You left a similar threat on my talk page. I don't think any of that type of rhetoric is helpful, and honestly, the virulent attitude has made me wonder as well, what your connection to the subject is. I don't think Edaham's comment was out of line at all. Rockypedia (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't humor unreliable sources under the guise of neutrality. Do you really need specifics for that point? Taylor is an extremely unreliable source who has a specific motive to present his position in a favorable light. He is both unreliable and biased, and his opinion is only being considered because he is the topic of the article. That's not trivial, but false balance is still a big risk. "White supremacist" accurately summarizes his position according to many sources. Wikipedia articles should reflect his position according to reliable sources. To say "widely described" would imply that a minority of reliable sources dispute this. That is not accurate. Even if they do not use the same language, they do not dispute this.
What do either of those Guardian articles have to do with this? Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Grayfell, you aren't bringing anything new to this argument. Please read from the beginning so you're not wasting our time with the same ole same ole we've already gone through. Our PAGs are unambiguous, and your opinions do not overrule them. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason s/he's "not bringing anything new to this argument" is because everything has already been said over and over and over and over and over and over (and over)^157, yet you still persist with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's time to drop the stick and leave the poor dead horse alone. Already way too much time has been spent on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #7[edit]

Repeating what I said on WP:RS/N: I don't think anyone is disputing that Jared Taylor is a white nationalist. I also don't see how you can make a claim of notabiiity for him without describing him as a "white nationalist". Therefore, we must mention that in the lede sentence without weasel words like "described as". Does anyone disagree with the claim that he is a white nationalist, and that this fact should be mentioned as fact in the lede sentence? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I already tried something along those lines but was reverted. I'm going through the motions now hoping editors will understand the argument we've presented to make this BLP compliant. Look at the edit summary to see the GF attempts I've made to make this attack page BLP compliant. Tryptofish offered the most neutral suggestion, so hopefully the lead can be modified without elevating this issue to the relevant noticeboard. I can't bear the sound of dentist's drill. Atsme📞📧 23:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that he is a white nationalist (and a white supremacist). I am also not a reliable source. Without meaning to be coy, this is not a fact in the same manner as a scientific fact. It's the kind of attribution that is covered at WP:TERRORIST. As for notability, we certainly would have to base that on the fact that sources clearly say that he is one. I also think that Atsme is incorrect to call the present version of the page an attack page (and I'm watchlisting, so there is no need to keep pinging me). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
from White nationalism: "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity." - this is, basically, how Taylor describes himself in sympathetic media when he calls himself a "race realist". I think "white nationalist" is a fact in the same way that the fact that "a cheetah is a type of cat" is a fact, especially if nobody is willing to personally object. Taylor objects to "white supremacist" and that term is more inflammatory so I'm not prepared to claim that "he is a white supremacist" is a fact, but I am prepared to do so for "white nationalist". Power~enwiki (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, I really am not trying to be difficult here, and I'm cringing at how what I'm about to say can be misconstrued as "alternative facts". I don't think that "white nationalist" is a fact in the same way that "the atomic weight of carbon is 12" is a fact, or even in the way that "climate change denial is pseudoscience" is a fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
  • id be happy with the above. I don't think the article should refer specifically to him as a white supremacist, but the word has been used so frequently in connection with him and is so well sourced, that it would be wrong to omit this information for the sake of diluting the tone of the page. It's relevant, it's important and an unconnected reader should have access to the information via Wikipedia. For this reason the term should apply to the media with which he is associated. No attribution is required in the lede, however they should be made clear in the body of the article as they transfer notability. Edaham (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
That's good! I'm fine with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Me, too!! Atsme📞📧 00:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

More broadly, I think that's an excellent approach: when writing in Wikipedia's voice, call the organizations and publications etc. "white supremacist" and "white nationalist". That's entirely clear and non-weasely, without actually calling the person that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

there's an argument which applies to authors, which I mentioned in an earlier post. I think it applies here. Stephen king isn't noted as a horrible person, he's noted as a writer of horror. If he were to insist that it were called metaphysical alternativism, Doubleday and other publishers would probably insist on using the term horror along with what ever adjectives further distinguish the work from others in its category. This is often the case when authors disagree with the category into which they've been put. As Wikipedia editors we would probably pick the opinions of the publishers and press over that of the author's insistence on an alternative name, while noting his or her objection. Nothing about this case is peculiar in that respect, and there's no reason not to follow the same principle. White supremacist isn't a typical adjective for a body of work, but it's one which is frequently used when referring to his publications. It's sourced and there's no need to be shy about imparting that information . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talkcontribs) 00:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that my omission of the other paragraph in the lede was got the sake of brevity. I don't think it should be removed. Edaham (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with describing (only) the publication as white-supremacist is that this doesn't give proper regard to the wealth of sources that describe the person as a white supremacist. It's not hard to understand that some editors might prefer this, and it would be appropriate for an article on the publication -- but the issue in this BLP is the person. Given previous RfCs, I'll also advise against any quick adoption of that idea via a quick "consensus". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Read from the beginning - all of the concerns have already been discussed in their entirety. Read WP:LABEL which is unambiguous and indisputable, doesn't matter how many sources of "opinion" are mentioned. It's still opinion. If you disagree, state the specific statement in the RS that substantiates the label as fact. Atsme📞📧 01:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I can put a suggestion on the table if only for the sake of keeping the debate moving into new territory: We attribute quotes made about the author to whoever made them, while omitting them when referring to organizations the subject may have founded, which are unambiguously described in a certain manner. Edaham (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Read from the beginning - all of the concerns have already been discussed in their entirety. Uh, no they haven't. Numerous high a quality sources have been presented that not only unequivocally describe him as a supremacist, but also describe him one of the most prominent white supremacist leaders of the the day. IMO the proposed wording above softpedals that to an unacceptable degree. And I agree with nomo that we should avoid hasty declarations of a consensus before more of the editors who commented above have weighed in. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You can dispute PAGs all you want...this can go on forever in discussion...but it won't because we have BLP policy. You might want to read it again because when the lead is changed, you may want to think twice about violating it...or perhaps you'd like to call an RfC, or go through some other means of DR? Atsme📞📧 01:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"other editors...have weighed in" - I was going to say exactly the same thing. My contribution is a preliminary wording to which others will wish to add. Not looking for speedy anything here. We aren't working to a deadline. Let's take our time and get this right Edaham (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem with that proposed lead is that it suggests that Jared Taylor is primarily know for being "the founder and editor of American Renaissance" - and that's ridiculous. American Renaissance is barely known; Jared Taylor is far more well-known. Why is he more well-known? Because he's a white supremacist. You can dress it up any way you want - yes, the white supremacist movement has made a move towards calling themselves "white nationalists" in an effort to become more palatable, that's well-sourced as well, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that reliable sources, repeatedly and across the board, identify Jared Taylor as a white supremacist. It's literally what makes him notable enough to have an article here in the first place. I take issue with the opinion that having that in the lead is defamatory - if Jared Taylor doesn't like being called a white supremacist by reliable sources, he shouldn't publicly espouse white supremacist positions. Dylann Roof has been far less public about his opinions on race; does anyone have a problem with the lead sentence of his article? Rockypedia (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. I only addressed one sentence in the article. I've got no problem with the word WS being attributed to the works and not the man but as a summary of his notability it is lacking. Rather than theorize though, at what I hope is the penultimate juncture in this discussion, can you write a new proposed lead with the amendments you wish to make. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The current lead is the result of several long discussions and at least one very thorough RfC; absent any new information since that RfC, I think the lead is fine as is. I think everyone who isn't familiar with the points made during that RfC should go into the talk page archive and read it. It's exhaustively complete, and resulted in an overwhelming consensus. We didn't do that RfC just for fun. Two or three editors coming in here and suddenly wishing to change the lead against that consensus would be wrong. Rockypedia (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"American Renaissance is barely known." If that's the case, why does the American Renaissance (Magazine) wikipedia page exist? Moreover, being a white supremacist doesn't make you notable. There are thousands of white supremacists nobody has ever heard of. Also, Taylor has never espoused white supremacist views. A reliable source called the "dictionary" shows this. As for Roof, if it's the same for him, I also have a problem with that. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Given the amount of controversy surrounding this page, I propose that any anon IP be barred from discussion, as it's very possible that IP editors could easily be sockpuppets of registered editors attempting to bolster their case with fake support. Rockypedia (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
agree 100% :D but that's not going to get passed unfortunately. I also agree with the reasons for his notability but have no problem with attributing labels to his actions, influences and works. I also have no problem with the current version so at least I'll be happy whatever the outcome. It looks like that actually puts me out of the debate! So happy editing folks! Edaham (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It's clear we have the majority thinking the sources are fine with one editor and an IP that don't get it. Although I'm not a fan of quotes....perhaps we should just quote this gentleman a bit. Explain that he believes blacks have lower IQ and are more promiscuous ...that Asians have a better society etc. White supremacist and there out dated racial views are very easy to spot. Just recently had to explain this sort of problem at American ancestry that was titled American ethnicity. Moxy (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Who made that determination? You, Moxy? Since you are so anxious to IAR, and think it's ok to be noncompliant with BLP, NPOV and MOS, all of which have been pointed out here as they relate to this topic, and on RS/N numerous times, are you willing to discuss it at AN/I knowing what WP:LABEL and WP:BLP prescribe? ??? Just curious... are you so firm in your belief that you are willing to edit war over it? I say let's hold an RfC first, and see if a real consensus can be reached because the "no consensus" decision that was mentioned above only prolongs the argument. I strongly believe that WP:PAG will prevail if we elevate this discussion, hopefully without sacrificing any editor to a block for edit warring. Do you at least agree with that? Atsme📞📧 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
According to every single editor that has weighed in so far, except for you, atsme, the page is already in line with WP:PAG, so it already has "prevailed", whatever that means. It's clear to me that you mean you will prevail, but I find that highly unlikely, as multiple editors have already pointed out the flaws in your arguments to whitewash Taylor's description of what he's most notable for. However, you certainly have every right to start an RfC, no one is stopping you, and you can drop the BS about "sacrificing any editor to a block for edit warring" - that's "such crap", to use your own words. Start the RfC, already, and stop wasting your time arguing in circles. Or if you prefer, WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockypedia (talkcontribs) 22:21, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
  • Just in case it wasn't already clear, I never intended my own comments in this section to be any kind of declaration of consensus – just stating my own views of what would be best for this page. I would also suggest that the best arguments are those that actually address the proposal for a new lead, rather than just saying that previous consensus should be kept stable (compare WP:CCC). It also seems to me that many editors are being excessively rigid in their positions, and that is not helpful. About the ongoing arguments that it is necessary to describe the person rather than the publication, it seems to me that anyone who is the founder of a supremacist publication is going to be a supremacist themselves, and it would be really bizarre if someone who rejects supremacism would nonetheless found such a publication. And if the person is notable for their supremacist views, it's worth considering how anyone found out about those views. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Section on Racial Views[edit]

Regarding this edit: The section extensively and uncritically quotes or paraphrases Taylor's own characterization of his views and his work, which raises major neutrality issues. Statements like: "Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests" are vague to the point of being meaningless: what are those interests? Why does Taylor believe they exist? This is his sales-pitch, but it doesn't really inform readers about his views on anything. It's akin to saying that "Barack Obama believes in equal opportunity for all Americans", it might work on the campaign stump, but it would be unacceptable for Wikipedia to characterize his policy views that way.

The section needs to begin with clear, euphemism-free descriptions of his stated beliefs from reliable sources, before moving on to his own characterizations. Taylor believes that human beings can be categorized in to discrete racial categories, that racial differences are biologically ingrained in the human species, and that those innate racial differences are fundamental for understanding human history and development. These views fall under a paradigm called "scientific racism", which is widely rejected by mainstream experts.

Taylor also believes that society works better when racial groups have minimal contact with each other. He supports changing law and practices in order to ensure this. This is called "racial segregation". There seems to be little ambiguity here regarding the definitions. It does readers a disservice to pretend these are novel beliefs.

Aside from that, there were some changes to wording and ordering that seem uncontroversial and unrelated to any of these issues, a revert seems unhelpful. I'm happy to make changes within reason, but I have a hard time seeing, how the section, as currently written, could possibly conform to NPOV or to the guidelines on how to characterize fringe views.

Nblund talk 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two versions, side-by-side. It may be helpful to compare them this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Existing version

Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests, and that it is intellectually valid for them to protect these interests; he sees it as anomalous that non-Hispanic whites have allowed people of other races to organize themselves politically while not doing so themselves.[1] His journal American Renaissance was founded to provide such a voice for white interests.[2] Writing in that journal in 2005, he stated, ""Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."[3] Taylor is noted as saying, "Whites deserve a homeland," and when questioned about the new US immigration laws passed in 1965, under the Hart-Celler Act, said that "Whites are making a terrible mistake by setting in motion forces that will reduce them to a minority."[4]

Taylor believes in a general correlation between race and intelligence, where blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians: "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. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter".[5]

Proposed revision

Taylor is a proponent of scientific racism[6][7], and racial segregation. [8] Taylor argues that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians: "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. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter".[9]

Taylor describes himself as an advocate for white interests.[10] He states that his journal, American Renaissance, was founded to provide such a voice for white interests, and argues that it's work is analogous to other interest groups that advocate for ethnic or racial groups. [11] Writing in that journal in 2005, he stated, ""Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."[12]

Taylor supports immigration policies that would favor white immigrants over other groups. Taylor is noted as saying, "Whites deserve a homeland," and when questioned about the US immigration laws passed in 1965, under the Hart-Celler Act, said that "Whites are making a terrible mistake by setting in motion forces that will reduce them to a minority."[13]

Citations

References

  1. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, pp. 87–88.
  2. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, p. 88.
  3. ^ "Jared Taylor". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2017-06-17. 
  4. ^ Jared Taylor, in an interview with ABC News' Amna Nawaz, on 26 March 2017; Jared Taylor, ABC Interview 2017.
  5. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, p. 102
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sussman2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Wilson, Jason (26 August 2016). "'The races are not equal': meet the alt-right leader in Clinton's campaign ad". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 August 2017. 
  8. ^ "Jared Taylor: Academic Racist". adl.org. The Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 12 August 2017. 
  9. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, p. 102
  10. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, pp. 87–88.
  11. ^ Swain & Nieli 2003, p. 88.
  12. ^ "Jared Taylor". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2017-06-17. 
  13. ^ Jared Taylor, in an interview with ABC News' Amna Nawaz, on 26 March 2017; Jared Taylor, ABC Interview 2017.
I think I like the proposed revision better. It uses more direct language, and I'm not seeing any editorializing in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about the word, "ensure," in the sentence, "he supports changing law and practices in order to ensure this." Taylor does support changing law and practices, but I would use the word "encourage" instead. Taylor has stated he believes in freedom of association, but believes that without laws forcing diversity on people, whether it's in the workplace or with immigration, the vast majority of people will naturally stick to associating with members of their own race. He has said he wants to put an end to immigration and he wants it to be legal for employers to discriminate. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I read the actual quotes he said, and they're nothing like what the article claims he said. Where is the quote wherein he argues that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites? The quote I read was "“Races are different. Some races are better at some things than others”, he said. I want to read his words so I can veryify that he actually said those things - he says he didn't - so we take a politically motivated news source and label him as white supremacist, and scientific racist? That's hogwash. I don't like either version quite frankly - both look like racial discrimination against him for being white. Wow. I guess it depends on whose view is supporting segregation and one's definition of "racism" or "supremacy". What about this, and this, and this for starters? Who supports it? Better yet, read this Harvard article about bias in Wikipedia. I'm not making this stuff up. Bottomline, what does it all mean to WP, and to the quality of our articles, which should not be written like a term paper filled with pseudoscientific claims that must be cited to MEDRS (and they're not, they're cited to The Guardian). Over half of our readers may very well find such articles offensive, and that hurts the integrity of the project. NPOV is not offensive. We are not here to right great wrongs, to apologize for what happened hundreds of years ago, to advocate for one race over another, or turn a BLP into an attack page because of political and/or racial differences. We state facts in WP that are supported by RS, not opinions that are trying to be stated as facts in Wiki voice. If you can't see it, then you're too close to the topic, and that creates issues. Atsme📞📧 21:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Best to stick to policies and guidelines, which tell us not to do this kind of original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, the quote where Taylor says that he believes that black people are less intelligent than whites it cited to "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America", by Carol Swain, not the Guardian. I didn't write it, it comes from the version you restored. I don't have access to Swain's book, but it's entirely consistent with his other statements on this topic. If your problem is with that quote, I think we could certainly find a different one, but there's really no question that he promotes the view that black people are less intelligent that white people, and Taylor himself acknowledges that that viewpoint is overwhelmingly rejected my mainstream science.
None of this explains why you reverted other portions of the edit. Nblund talk 21:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As I said in the revert edit summary, I think the new wording is dramatically better. It would be nice to retain Race and intelligence as a wikilink, and that does seem like the place to do that, but this is a very minor quibble. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, maybe if you hear it from me, you will take it seriously. Your arguments are becoming unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just read the article's history and revisions by Grayfell and Atsme. There's some blatant whitewashing going on there. Thanks to Grayfell for cleaning that up. Putting together all of the pieces from various talk pages along with the attempts to convert this article into white pride sales media, I very much hope this isn't a collaborative attempt to force a point of view onto this page. That would have been a serious waste of editor's time. Not least of all of Lou Sander's, who has hundreds of battle ships to write about and of Atsme who has super cool fish to photograph ~ hopefully not running into any battle ships at the time, otherwise they'd have a genuine reason to write about each other. I think it's time to get back to work folks. The proposed version in this section works - for what it's worth Edaham (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Blatant whitewashing? Edaham, are you referring to me removing 2 BLP violations twice, and adding a POV tag that was wrongfully removed? That's what you call whitewashing?
Tryp, I'm sorry if you feel my arguments are becoming unreasonable, Why should anyone argue about labeling the guy a white supremacist in the lead, and then in the body quote him saying, "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure...." Now that statement supports his white supremacy doesn't it, and I shouldn't argue because everybody is right and I'm wrong, right?
How many times have we heard "consensus"? Well I went looking through the archives to find that consensus, and couldn't even find that an RfC was held, so where is it? C'mon, cough it up.
Arguing is the last thing I want to do - I just want you to listen to what I'm saying about RS starting with Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist". For white supremacist, we have the great conspiracy theorist, Michael_Newton_(author), who is not an academic, rather he's just a proficient author of lots of books about everything, expert that he is. Then we have the NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. Surely that has nothing to do with any political bias, right?
Biased sources can certainly be RS - no argument there - but not for this BLP with regards to statements of fact in WP voice. My position hasn't changed - you just keep ignoring it despite it being policy. Don't believe me? Read WP:REDFLAG - it's V policy which states clearly: "or those with an apparent conflict of interest;" Carol M. Swain is also cited in this BLP, and she wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Now that's a NPOV right there - not a lick of bias.
And then we have SPLC and ADL - read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, [11] - tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias - a real live RS. Gee. My arguments are so unreasonable. Maybe I've overlooked the one unreasonable comment I may have made, so please point it out for me. Could it be where I cited the Harvard article above about bias? Could it have been the links that demonstrate purposeful segregation on university campuses? I apologize if those are unreasonable. I just thought the activity coincided with other views about segregation that cause people to be labeled white supremacists, or along that same line. I agree they are not useful sources for this BLP - but they did make a point - and I apologize. I won't add anymore links that can't be cited to this BLP.
I have no problem with the use of quotes this guy made as long they're used in the context they were originally intended and cited to a RS - but then, if the source actually is reliable, the quotes won't be out of context, will they? Don't tell me MSM cherry-picked quotes for bait-click or to make him look worse than what he already is - he doesn't need any help for that. All we have to do is provide factual information and our readers will be able to see what he is or isn't. Our job is not to destroy the guy's life because his ideology is highly unpopular and even hated by many. Imagine what it was like to get Hitler promoted to GA.
I'll just end the subject of me being unreasonable with a little sampling of what I've endured simply for staying true to WP:PAGs: 8-11-2017, and this one 8-12-2017. But I'm the one being unreasonable. Gee...thanks. Atsme📞📧 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
you haven't endured anything. You've been heavily criticized for trying to remove sourced material to lessen the perceived (by you) impact and accuracy of an article, using intentionally erroneous application of policies and threats from the beginning. If you don't like me making jokes about it, don't be funny. Edaham (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That's YOUR opinion - and my advice to you is to stop talking about editors and focus on content because the policies are clear...and so are your PAs. Atsme📞📧 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Its clear your interpretation or how our P/Gs should guide us in this case has been rejected by the vast majority here. I suggests that its best to move on or request further input by a new set of editors (RfC).--Moxy (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposed version is clearer to read and better organized. The info is sourced and the sources appear to support it (from what I can tell). I'd like to see another source for the segregation claim and found a source from an interview with him on NPR ([12], click the transcript button to read). Arguments above about bias from the sources seems to be digging to find a reason to reject them. Sources are allowed to be biased (WP:BIASED); we aren't (WP:NPOV). That said, caution appears to have been taken with these sources by providing quotes when possible. If there were others RS providing conflicting information, we'd have an issue. I see no reason prima facia to not go with the pro proposed text. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposed version is far clearer, well-sourced, and an improvement. No policy-based reason was advanced for the reversion of this edit. Neutralitytalk 07:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede[edit]

Respondents, please choose whether the lede shall be written as proposed in "Option A" (which is the current version), or "Option B" or "Option C"? Atsme📞📧 12:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Question changed to a more neutral version by Winged Blades Godric at 11:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Option A - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
  • B - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.[4] He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
  • C - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been described as a white nationalist and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.[4] He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Survey[edit]

Again I am adding the authors/sources which are noncompliant with WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL for stating opinon in Wiki voice as a statement of fact:
DO NOT REMOVE information from my comment section.
  1. Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist".
  2. Michael_Newton_(author), not an academic, he writes about conspiracy theories, and is a prolific author who has written lots of books about everything.
  3. NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. Evidence of bias in the NYTimes Political section: supported the Dem nominee Hillary Clinton, and [13].
  4. Carol M. Swain regarding "opinion not fact" which is clearly reflected in the sources used per the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? She also wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Biased opinion.
  5. SPLC and ADL, questionable and not a RS for statement of fact because they are advocacies: read the last paragraphs in the Britannica here and here. Britannica is a tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias and they dispute the reliability of those two sources. With research to verify context and sources cited by the sources cited here, you will find that many of them cite SPLC & ADL.Atsme📞📧 04:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - He is a white supremacist, full stop. And he is described as such by a very large number of reliable sources. Some examples:
  1. The New York Times calls him "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists"
  2. This academic encyclopedia calls him a "well known white supremacist/seperatist."
  3. This academic monograph by an expert on the subject calls him a "Virignia White Supremacist."
  4. Another Academic encyclopedia calls him a "major force in white supremacist circles."
  5. The Times Higher Education Supplement calls him "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement.
  6. The Guardian describes him as "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist"
  7. The Independent describes him as "a prominent white supremacist"
  8. Here is another academic work that calls him a white supremacist unequivocally. As with most of the sources above, it does so without attributing it to the Southern Poverty Law Center or referencing them, treating the identification as fact.
See the existing discussions above for even more sources, and extensive discussions. There is no doubt about this, per some of the most reliable and most authoritative sources available. Option A is a bit awkwardly worded and can be improved, but is the only option that doesn't softpedal the fact that Taylor is a white supremacist, and that that is what he's primarily notable for. Anything less than that that is a POV whitewash. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • C - as the BLP (and some others) contest this label, and this label has mainly been stated by left of center outlets. It would be best to attribute the label even if a wide range of sources call him such.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - the part about being led to answer yes to writing opinions as statement of fact etc - blah blah blah - i.e. Wiki lawyering in order to poison the well is spurious. We aren't stating opinions as fact; we are writing down in terms clear to the reader, what has been unanimously reported by a preponderance of sources. Trying to make people feel that they are somehow contravening wiki policy by picking one of the options is not a the way to open an RfC. It does however fall in line with the rather transparent technique of trying to make people worried about doing the right thing. Edaham (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A, per Fyddlestix, and per the wide range of sources that are unequivocal on this matter. The other two options are unacceptable insofar as they give the impression that it's really only the SPLC that thinks Taylor is a white supremacist -- this is a blatant distortion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A, of course, this shouldn't even be up for discussion. Richard Spencer is described as a white nationalist, as is David Duke and a host of others. When one expresses a racist point-of-view, then one is described as such. Factually. TheValeyard (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So is a racist who thinks whites are inferior a "white supremacist?" Factually, racism is not synonymous with white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A, no reason to dismiss reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A our purpose is to regurgitate the sources .....it's clear what all the sources say.--Moxy (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • D Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and described as a white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
^^^Not bad, Slatersteven and inline text attribution would fit nicely. Atsme📞📧 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

*Comment The RfC question is not phrased neutrally and I suggest it be reworded. Possible recordings are something like, "which of the following options best reflect the reliable sources?" Or "do reliable sources support calling Taylor a white supremacist?" Ca2james (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

    • Adding: the problem with the RfC question, as others have pointed out, is that it presupposes that the issue is opinions written as statement of fact in WP voice but then does not provide options that address that issue... A strawman argument, as it were. Suggest rewriting the question and/or reformatting the survey. Ca2james (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC) strike comment as RFC question has been changed. Ca2james (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A Although I also proposed an alternate wording that received no traction. I'm not bitter. I promise. Nblund talk 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A although, as I noted below, this is a straw man RfC that should be struck immediately for not being phrased in a neutral manner. The proposer, Atsme📞📧, is not at all concerned with violations of Wikipedia policy; he is only concerned with whitewashing the description of Taylor to make him seem more mainstream, and the proof of this is in his straw-man RfC: the description of Taylor is not an opinion. It is a fact, verified by dozens of reliable sources. Atsme's blatant lies that he is "concerned" are abhorrent, as his true purpose is simply to improve Taylor's reputation, and if you disagree with that, read the guidelines on forming an RfC, then read Atsme's RfC phrasing again, and you tell me if he's trying to be neutral. Should be struck at once, even though he's battling to whitewash Taylor's description and he's going to lose here anyway. Doesn't matter, though - the RfC is still invalid, and should be struck as a matter of principle. Rockypedia (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - there's a clear consensus against Atsme, I see no reason to strike this RfC on technical errors made by Atsme. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We have 7 days left - let the damn RfC do its job, and stop with the fallacious claims of consensus. Consensus is what this RfC will represent, so stop already. Atsme📞📧 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A - overwhelmingly supported by the reliable sources, including university press-published books, and not contradicted by any reliable sources. The constant questioning of what the reliable sources say, accompanied by walls of text, is getting tedious. Neutralitytalk 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A per the existing sources as well as findings by Fyddlestix above. The labels are widely ascribed by multiple RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option D I would say "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American author and spokesperson whose focus is the topic of race." Being an author/spokesperson is what makes him notable; there are thousands of non-notable white supremacists. Let the readers draw their own conclusions from neutral text. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC has been constructed very, very badly. The opening question assumes something that the RfC should actually be asking: whether the characterizations are "opinions" or "facts". In this context, I can very much understand why so many editors are endorsing Option A. Although I have suggested some possibilities involving "described as" in earlier talk, I have also seen what I accept as convincing rebuttals to what I had suggested. And the discussions leading to this RfC have involved way too much in the way of editors digging in without considering compromise. So, I am endorsing something pretty much like what another editor already proposed in talk: Option D2:
Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
That is just like Option B, but with "a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as" deleted from the first sentence. (And which was actually supported by the editor who opened this RfC, in earlier talk.) As long as the publication, rather than the person, is identified as white supremacist, we don't need to trip all over ourselves to say "described as". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Tryp - you need to change it to Option E as there is already an Option D above unless Option D becomes the "catch-all". Atsme📞📧 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The absurdly non-neutral framing shouldn't be ignored, but Option A is fine. The lede should indicate why he is notable and avoid using weasel words or euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A per Fyddlestix. The reliable sources are clear that he is a white supremacist. There are no sources saying he isn't one so I find it unecessary to note that he is "described as" one (which implies that the label isn't universal... Which it is). I find the arguments that the RS are not reliable to be unconvincing. I would also be fine with option D2 as a second choice but oppose any wording using the "described as" phrase. I'm expressing my opinion even though I think this RfC is non-neutral (as I commented above). Ca2james (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A as per Fyddlestix. This is not remotely a borderline issue, nor does it involve BLP. Reliable sources are effectively unanimous in describing an outspoken white supremacist as, yes, a white supremacist. That he disagrees with the reliable sources is not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A. The walls of text preceding this RfC, with their convoluted attempts to misapply policy, make me sad. Wikipedia is not aloof from the world, and the whitewashing of articles about enablers of violence and hatred should not be tolerated. If the sourcing is there—and in this case it clearly is—call it by its name. I've said this before on a talk page, although not for many years: if public figures don't want negative content in their Wikipedia articles, they shouldn't say or do things that guarantee exactly that. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
See what I mean? This is exactly the kind of comment that shows how misguided people are over here. What does "enabling violence and hatred" have to do with whether or not Taylor is a white supremacist? Your emotionally charged, subjective words make it clear you think wikipedia has some kind of moral obligation to be anything more than a totally neutral source of information. It doesn't. This is supposed to be an online, public-run encyclopedia. Just the facts. The only thing that is factual is that there is a narrative in the media that includes many people thinking he's a "white supremacist." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A -- although it may be worthwhile to state: "... white nationalist and white supremacist activist". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A The fact that the statement in the lede is overwhelmingly supported by multiple mainstream reliable sources means that this is not in WP voice, contrary to the phrasing of this RfC. First Light (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A Fiddlestyx's list of RS above is more than sufficient. Strangely, I don't see any countervailing sources being proffered. BLP does not requiere Wikipedia to assist in cosmetic clean-ups of reputation just because a living person doesn't like an accurate label of them or their views.--Carwil (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • option A Summarizes the very well sourced content in the body which is what the LEAD does; this is what he is notable for per many high quality sources and they are what we follow and give WEIGHT to, especially for a BLP. Under NPOV it is irrelevant if what high quality refs say is positive or negative, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE or tippy-toe around negative things, especially not when they are this well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A I have yet to see a WP:MAINSTREAM source which disputes the categorical identifiers therein contained. jps (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, 100%, option C Unless you can find a source saying that he embraced the labels, labeling him as a white supremacist is obviously defamatory and could land Wikipedia in legal trouble. He has also been described as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist by different sources, and WP:YESPOV says "If different reliable sources make conflicting(which is defined as incompatible or at variance; contradictory) assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Calling him a white supremacist against his word would be a blatant violation of NPOV and WP:LIBEL. THE DIAZ talkcontribs 22:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Best strike the legal talk......some may see this as a threat to take action. I get your point (way off that it is) but others may not. --Moxy (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A per Fyddlestix showing that option A is well-sourced. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A. Clear as day, based on numerous reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C is the only vaguely NPOV phrasing presented. Those of you opining in favor of the POV-drenched Option A need to revisit what NPOV is all about. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Why do you think Samuel Jared Taylor being a white nationalist/supremacist is an opinion instead of a fact? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP denies it and the RS used are opinions of those who have a COI, or opposing ideologies such as Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, which is cited for the label "white nationalist". For white supremacist, we have the great conspiracy theorist author, Michael_Newton_(author), who is not an academic, rather he's just a proficient author of lots of books about everything, expert that he is. The NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. While biased sources can certainly be RS - no argument there - they cannot be for this BLP as statements of fact in WP voice. Read WP:REDFLAG - it's V policy which states clearly: "or those with an apparent conflict of interest;" Another cited source is Carol M. Swain who wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." It is not NPOV. And then we have SPLC and ADL which are cited by the sources cited in several instances - read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, and [14] - tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias. Atsme📞📧 12:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think the NYTimes article, which leads with "Until recently, Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, had never supported a presidential candidate." is opinion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is in the political section during the 2016 election campaign in a news source that supported the Dem nominee and that has clearly shown a bias. To take it one step further regarding "opinion not fact" reflected in the sources used, I'll again point to Carol Swain. See the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? Atsme📞📧 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You're not making much sense Atsme. A news article in the NYT is reliable, there's no precedent or valid justification for dismissing that because their editorial board endorsed Clinton, or because the article in question happens to be about the election. And the quote about Swain is related to her teaching and personal statements, not the peer-reviewed publication cited here. As far as I can tell, that controversy is completely unrelated to her views on Taylor. More to the point, you realise the flap around Swain is about her conservative views right? Shes like the opposite of the SPLC on this stuff, but even she describes Taylor as a supremacist. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan And that's all I have to say. Atsme📞📧 14:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOURCE trumps guidelines. It may be best for you to retract your RfC if you can't explain why we shouldn't follow reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
that's all I have to say -- is that a promise, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps PTF and Nomo would like to provide the diff where I state anything close to saying "you shouldn't follow reliable sources". This is a case where CIR because it appears we have far too many who are misinterpreting what I've said. Please READ my comments. I have consistently quoted POLICY & GUIDELINES. Atsme📞📧 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't a promise.
Your whole argument rests on the premise that "white supremacist" is a value-laden label. It's not. And consensus agrees that it's not. Rockypedia (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As not only SPLC call him a white supremacist we cannot imply they are the only ones who have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz and Atsme have both expressed concerns that this claim is mostly limited to left-leaning outlets since the recent presidential election. This isn't really true, he's been viewed as an extremist by both the right and left for a very long time. For example:
  • Bush appointee Linda Chavez: "I’ve never hesitated to call such people racists; they are." (source)
  • National Review editor Ian Tuttle "these men ... have not simply been 'accused of racism.' They are racist, by definition. "(source)
  • Dinesh D'Souza (a vocal Trump supporter) repeatedly describes Taylor as a racist here (source),
Both the National Review and The Washington Times have also fired editors who attended American Renaissance conferences (source 1, source 2). This is not a mainstream figure. Nblund talk 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Once again, "racist" is not synonymous with "white supremacist." Have any of you people ever heard of a dictionary? White supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to other races and should rule over them. It is a form of racism, but there are many forms of racism that aren't white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Last time I looked, this was a BLP about Jared Taylor, not an article about American Renaissance. Again...WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan And that's all I have to say. Atsme📞📧 17:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This RfC is not even close to being phrased neutrally and sets up an obvious straw man. It implies that the description of Taylor as a white supremacist is an opinion, rather than a matter of fact. The question of whether opinions should be stated as facts is very very different from the question of whether the article should describe Taylor as the thing he is most notable for; ie his very public white supremacist advocacy. I move that the entire RfC be struck and a more neutral RfC be put in its place. Rockypedia (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In order to keep participants from getting off track, I will emphasize WP:LABEL specifically states (my bold underline): {{xt|Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. Following are the authors/sources which are noncompliant with WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL for stating opinon in Wiki voice as a statement of fact:

  1. Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist".
  2. Michael_Newton_(author), not an academic, he writes about conspiracy theories, and is a prolific author who has written lots of books about everything - Jack of all trades?
  3. NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. NYTimes bias in that political article: supported the Dem nominee Hillary Clinton, and clearly shows a bias.
  4. Carol M. Swain regarding "opinion not fact" which is clearly reflected in the sources used per the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? She also wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Biased opinion.
  5. SPLC and ADL, questionable and not a RS for statement of fact because they are advocacies: read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, [15] Britannica is a tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias and they dispute the reliability of those two sources. With research to verify context and sources cited by the sources cited here, you will find that many of them cite SPLC & ADL. Atsme📞📧 17:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
If that's your true purpose, why not set up an RfC asking if "white supremacist" is a "value-laden label"? No, you didn't do that. You deliberately set up your RfC with an obtuse straw man instead. That makes it clear, to me, at least, that you're not looking for Wikipedia to be neutral - you're looking for this one page to describe Taylor in a more sympathetic light. Doesn't matter, though; most editors have seen through your poorly designed ruse. They're all more polite than I am. I'm willing to call you out for what you are after seeing this RfC - you're a liar. Rockypedia (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Rocypedia, calling me a liar is PA - it has been noted. Atsme📞📧 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been reading your veiled threats to editors for days. Now I'm calling you out. "noted"? Go ahead, bring me up on charges. I'd love to see your rationale, in light of your obvious support for whitewashing the page about a white supremacist. Stop with the threats and actually do something. Or just stop with the threats. Either way, you're scaring me exactly zero percent. Rockypedia (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
As I already explained, the controversy about Swain has literally nothing to do with her writings about Taylor and is irrelevant here. NYT is a reliable source for facts, period. And being a "lifetime member" of the NAACP does not make someone an unreliable source (why would you think that?). You've said your piece, and restated the same arguments repeatedly. Please let others weigh in (isn't that the point of an RFC?) and stop trying to bludgeon the debate. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan Atsme📞📧 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you try making a productive comment instead of needless, senseless criticism? Huh? Productivity. It actually works when there's honest collaboration. Atsme📞📧 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Because sometimes uses need a reminder that their behavior is becoming disrupting but you want to do it in a minimal way because they tend to overreact due to over investment into the issue at hand (e.g., WP:TROUT). You need to chill; we get your point but clearly a dozen or so experienced users disagree with your interpretation. You're becoming defensive whenever anyone points this out and it's getting to be a bit much. It's great that you wish to uphold our policies regarding BLP protections, but clearly something's amiss here if your alone in the concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You've posted that quote and (more or less) that same paragraph three times since starting the rfc this morning. I think we get it, (although obviously not everyone thinks it's the clinching argument that you do). Please stop, the repetition is disruptive. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Pay closer attention to yourself and how you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over - you are bludgeoning so if you expect a different answer ask a different question. Atsme📞📧 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask you a question? And I've made 4 comments in this RFC so far. You've made (by my count) 14, including 3 which are essentially the same paragraph copy-pasted repeatedly: [16][17][18]. You're not in a position to lecture anyone about bludgeoning the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, duh - that's because I'm answering/responding to everyone else's questions, like I just did now so if I was responding to every single one, that number would be over 100, not just 14. Atsme📞📧 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Answering? Responding to? No. Nobody is asking any questions and repeating a case every time someone makes a comment isn't really responding.. An effort is being made to try to win an RfC with walls of text, which is ironic really, because it kind of makes it harder to find the actual comments section, which is meant to be found by uninvolved editors. The point at which this strategy began its course was the fraction of an hour it took for a consensus to begin emerging. The threats of PA and subsequent punishments etc. being issued are due to the fact that, while it is very important to focus on content, not the editor, when an editor, through disruptive behavior, becomes the sole focus of an issue, it is hard not to address the person directly. I've attempted this in my post by removing all the pronouns and using the passive voice where possible. Edaham (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that you're repeating yourself over and over again in an effort to whitewash an article about a white supremacist, trying to frame him in a more positive light in the face of overwhelming consensus against you. It doesn't matter if the number of times you've done it is 14 or 100. Meanwhile, you've been issuing veiled threats against every editor pointing out the obvious faults in your specious arguments, and "you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over - you are bludgeoning" is just the latest example. I'm watching all of those veiled threats, and to use your own words, "it has been noted." ooo, isn't that ominous sounding? Exactly. Rockypedia (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This article said "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication" up until June 17 of this year when you changed it to "American white nationalist and white supremacist." For 12-13 years, nobody on wikipedia thought to actually label him a white supremacist...and then you came along and connected dots nobody else did. You changed the first sentence from something nobody had a problem with into the controversy it has become. FYI. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and FYI: I am not a "sockpuppet." It's not just that everyone who disagrees with your inane writings is the same person. I think you're projecting. You probably have another username or two and you're agreeing with yourself on here. Hilarious how you would try to insist that IPs would be the "sockpuppets"...like that is any more likely than you registering multiple usernames to make it look like you have "consensus." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, anonymous IP editor. I'll be sure to give this comment exactly the amount of attention that it deserves. Rockypedia (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources showing Taylor is not a white supremacist. Source 1. Source 2. Source 3. Source 4. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Dictionary entries will never be evidence that a particular case does or does not call for a term, whether offered by a sockpuppet or a real boy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
(e.c.) IP editor: they show nothing of the kind. Synthesis is prohibited. (Would that attempted rebranding of white supremecists were prohibited, too.) RivertorchFIREWATER 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
They actually do if you're familiar with Taylor's work. This exposes the flaw in Wikipedia's policy, and allows disingenuous editors to peddle something false based on the natural left slant of electronic media. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So you don't know what synthesis is, and you don't care about Wikipedia's core content policies. You're just here to spout talking points from Fox News. So ends my supposition that a conversation was possible. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If you needed more confirmation, check out this addition by the same IP at the 3RR report I had to file against him: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." Rockypedia (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I just think we should be clear here. He only "is" a white supremacist according to wikipedia's flawed policy - that being someone "is" something ON WIKIPEDIA when numerous mainstream media sources say it (and since the vast majority of media sources are left-wing biased, you're going to get left-wing bias in the claims on wikipedia...especially since the few conservative-slanted sources are dismissed as unreliable around these parts). Anyone who does some actual research will see that this label of Taylor is BS and wikipedia is propagating a false claim based on lazy sources, but that apparently doesn't bother anyone because they're not interested in accuracy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
this is how the world sees him--Moxy (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
If that's how the world sees him, that's an argument for taking out the label, "white supremacist," since that article never refers to him as this. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're debating the wrong thing[edit]

"Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and white supremacist.[3]" SHOULD BE "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and political activist." That's the NPOV description of who he is — you all are chasing your tails trying to describe WHAT he is (and is not). Just drop that line at the top and try it on for size. The current opening line is absolutely unacceptable from an NPOV perspective, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

there's already an RfC open to this

that comment was not worth another thread when there is already an RfC survey open at the top. Add your comments concerning the survey there or feel free to start an unrelated thread.Edaham (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion is that it's not worth another thread. My perspective is that you are having an RFC pitting a blatantly POV-drenched option A, against an option B made a half cup of POV, against an option C which just has POV sprinkles. Each and every option presented is a violation of NPOV. You want NPOV? I just gave it to you. Describe what he is in the body of the peace. Summarize that in the second half of the lead. Done. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It makes me feel warm and fuzzy the way you use the pronoun "you" when talking about the entirety of this debate. OK yep, I'm going to get right on with editing as you suggest... (in the secret Wikipedia in my head which works exactly the way you want it to)... which is also, coincidentally, where this conversation is happening. Edaham (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I could support Carrite's proposal so long as the sentences that follow in the lead make clear that he is also considered a supremacist and nationalist. I've been trying, with not much success, to argue that it really is more encyclopedic to begin the lead in that way, and then go on to accurately present what his views are. (But I would not support removing entirely the content about supremacy and nationalism.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a proposal which would have satisfied what's being suggested here, which went on to list his achievements. Tryptofish even thanked me for it. It literally ran almost exactly as carrite is suggesting. Apparently though all discussions to date have been POV drenched... sprinkles... something etc. So instead of offering support for that or trying to work with other more closely aligned editors we get told we are all wrong. I'm not opposed to the idea that we describe him as what ever his sourced job title is and then make it abundantly clear what he did in that position in the same paragraph of the lede. What I'm worried about is how the decision to rework the article in this manner might affect interpretation of policy and it's effect on existing articles as well as future efforts to openly and plainly state what can easily be found in reliable sources. At this stage it's probably better to address the closing administrator with this in mind. Edaham (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did like your proposal very much. In Option D2, I attempted to propose essentially the same thing. And I agree that it's unfortunate that the tone of the discussions has been getting in the way of arriving at a thoughtful consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's partly my fault. Like many people, I injuditiously employ attempts at wit (which can be easily misconstrued as insults in text form) as a coping strategy for social interactions I find awkward, especially in those where perceived heirachial structures make me feel personally inadequate. But enough about me. A common analogy has been made - drawing parallels between Jared, Hitler and for some reason Charles Manson. This has been raised a couple of times and some points relevant to the debate can be drawn from it.
  • most of what was written about Hitler in order to furnish our article on him was, naturally given his sphere of influence, written in academic text books. In addition to that, it would be wrong to source his article entirely from news outlets (although it may be possible) as we have better sources available. Jared Taylor however, is at best a media personality in a set of trends amid a niche of society whose main interface with Wikipedia is via the press. We've used what academic sources we can find in the article, but the large portion of it (him being living) naturally comes from the media. If you want a Wikipedia article to accurately reflect the difference between Hitler and Taylor, as well as reflect the sources which are reasonably procurable do you think we should impose identical guidelines or should we look at this on a per case basis? Hitler is well known. Jared is not. To omit from the opening sentence on his article, the fact that Hitler was a racist facist is quite proper, since he was better known for other things, which naturally precede this information, which is pretty well known also. Jared isn't really known for anything other than being an activist and the only thing that distinguishes him among a sea of other activists is that he (according to sources) supports white supremacy in the country where he lives. Wikipedia ought to be able to distinguish when it is appropriate to reflect information which may be in a state of change, and when to rely on established texts. We pretty much have this system in place already and I think that this Hitler argument is a challenge to that system. Edaham (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea, but disagree with both those assessments. He's not notable as a writer, he's notable as an editor/publisher/founder of American Renaissance. And "political activist" is willfully vague, there must be some way of describing his political views which you don't feel is a violation of NPOV. I don't know whether you feel that's "far-right" or "alt-right" or "white nationalist" or something else; "race realist" is a made-up term that will never get consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would have no problem with "segregationist" - |Joseph Victor; Joanne Naughton (2003). Annual Editions: Criminal Justice 03/04. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-07-283827-5. According to racial separatist Jared Taylor of American Renaissance... --Moxy (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that, right now, in the wake of the riots that took place in Charlottesville, there is no way we can be neutral. Emotions have been running high on both sides of the political spectrum, and the extremes are dominating the conversation (to either attack or defend Taylor). Perhaps this should be revisited in a year... when emotions have calmed, and we can examine the question with some historical perspective. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking the same thing. It might be best to settle for "good enough" for now, and do some fine-tuning later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Point of Order[edit]

Normally I'd laugh this off as petty silliness, but given the disruptive behavior that is already in evidence on this RFC and the fact that it was not neutrally worded in the first place, I feel obliged to point this out: More than five hours after their initial !vote was added here, and long after had added my own !vote here, Atsme added a second comment under their initial !vote here. Because it directly referenced the list of sources that I had raised in my own !vote, I thought it obvious that that this was a reply to my own, and thus moved it to the Threaded Discussion section, assuming that this would be uncontroversial (in my experience, most RFCs work best when everyone gets one !vote, and then replies to others' comments and !votes in the section below).

Once moved, Atsme's second post garnered multiple replies, both from Atsme and from others (including myself) [19][20][21][22][23][24]. (That's just a few diffs as examples, there are more).

Since then, however, Atsme has moved their second !vote back up to the top of the survey section while leaving the replies below and altering the date stamp on their second post to make it look like it was written before my own !vote (which it was clearly a reply to, but now appears above in the survey section). See the essentially identical diffs with altered datestamps: initial post, restoration.

I'd like to request that Atsme move their later comment back to the Survey section, so that it is with the posts that were written in reply to it, and so that people's !votes appear in the order in which they were made. Being the proposer of the RFC is not a license to give your own replies and reactions to other people's contributions top billing. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, looks like this was reverted while I was typing this up. Assuming it stays that way I will strike this - but Atsme, please don't alter datestamps like that. It's not a good look.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't alter any datestamps - I wouldn't know how. You probably did it when you reverted me and if not you, then Rockypedia when he reverted me. Atsme📞📧 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ohhh I see what happened. It was you, but probably not on purpose:
Original post stamped 17:13
My move, still stamped 17:13.
Your restoration the stamp is altered to read "12:13 Today."
did you copy paste from rendered text, rather than from source maybe? It just changed from UTC to UTC - 5 (is that your timezone?)
Serious apologies for assuming bad faith, sorry Atsme. I was bothered by the non-sequential order of the comments and jumped to a conclusion I should not have, my apologies. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Washington Times[edit]

The article, in an unsourced claim, says Taylor worked as a news editor for The Washington Times in 1974-75. The Washington Times was founded in 1982, so that's impossible. The date might be wrong (which would throw off the chronology in that section), or he worked for another newspaper during that time period, but in any case the claim is flatly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.208.18.114 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2017‎ (UTC)

The claim is sourced to the Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History and I've verified the claim is in the source. I think there are two possibilities, the source is wrong, or that it's talking about a different paper with the similar name, e.g. Washington Times-Herald (Indiana). For now I'll remove the wiki links and add a dubious claim until we can sort it out. — Strongjam (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's odd, but it's also listed in his bio at American Renaissance : "1974–1975: News Editor, Washington Times (now defunct). ". Was there another Washington Times? It could be a typo, but I would think his own website would have his bio correct. Nblund talk 01:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
There's been other Washington Times, but I'm having a hard time finding any that were active in the 70s. Doesn't seem to have been a notable paper. Maybe someone with access to a good newspaper archive could find it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on the information in Washington Times-Herald (Indiana), it does not appear that either that publication or any of its antecedents was or were ever called "Washington Times". Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears to me that Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History, published in 2011, merely copied that info from Taylor's own website or took his word for it, since no explanation is given in the book what the publication actually was. I'm going to ask DGG if he can verify the existence of a Washington Times that was extant in 1974, and what exactly it was. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

From The Washington Post: "In 1954, the newspaper consolidated its position by acquiring and merging with its last morning rival, the Washington Times-Herald.[30] (The combined paper was officially named The Washington Post and Times-Herald until 1973, although the Times-Herald portion of the nameplate became less and less prominent after the 1950s.) The merger left the Post with two remaining local competitors, the afternoon Washington Star (Evening Star) and The Washington Daily News, which merged in 1972 and folded in 1981." No sign of a "Washington Times" in 1974 or 75.Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Unless it was some sort of underground freebie, there was definitely no Washington Times before the Unification Church established it in the early '80s. Times-Herald was gone from the Post's nameplate by '74, but that's beside the point: no one would have ever said they worked for the Times-Herald, let alone the Times, 20 years after the takeover (which is what it was, not really a merger). If we want to be generous, we can assume that it was a typo and meant to say either '84 or '94, but I'd suggest just removing it per failed verification. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's no typo; it's straight out of Taylor's own bio on his own website. I agree we should probably delete it or comment it out until more information is at hand. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Umm, yeah, I know. I presume that Taylor's own website isn't magically exempt from typos. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a chronological CV; there's no way the decade could have been mistyped (twice!). That's in addition to the facts that in subsequent decades he had much more important positions at other publications, and that no one leaves a typo on their own CV on their own website for 5+ years. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Purely a guess, but it may possibly have been intended to efer to the Washington Star, a defunct newspaper that ceased publication for economic reasons in 1981. The Washington Times was started as a separate enterprise in 1982. Both are/were known as gnerally supporting conservative politics. In any case the possible position is trivial in the context of the overall bio, as Taylor own activities were not significantly political until the 1990s, and best omitted unless there is actual verification of what was intended. I don't personally feel it is worth the research. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not worth it, I agree, but it's worth saying—The Washington Star bore zero resemblance to The Washington Times. The former was a thoroughly reputable newspaper whose conservative-leaning editorial stance was kept fully separate from its news reporting (which, incidentally, broke the Watergate burglary story). The latter paper...well, it's different in every particular. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The online CV has read "Washington Times" for more than 5 years [25], so we can safely assume that it was never intended to say anything different. Since at this point we don't know where Taylor was living in 1974, and since there are hundreds of places called "Washington" in the U.S., whatever the publication was it was probably of little or no importance. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this was added as part of Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2#Journalist. At one point the first sentence described him as a journalist without any further explanation. This bit about his brief former career made sense at the time, but the lede is better now, and this can be discarded. Some source do call him a journalist, but I agree that it's cryptic and basically irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to describe American Renaissance in the article[edit]

Right now it's a mere passing mention. Although it has its own wiki article, there needs to be at least a short summary here as well. The reader should not have to go to an entirely different article to find out about it. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I very much hope you don't mind my altering your post to link to the correct page American Renaissance is a stylistic period. Edaham (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)