Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Looks like sources indeed describe Taylor as both an author and a journalist: Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that. I'm sure sources describe him as lots of things, but the lede should summarize the body. I don't see any explanation of his activities as a journalist. Is being an editor considered part of that? If so, then Misplaced Pages is implying that American Renaissance is a news outlet, which, being generous, is controversial. Has he worked as a journalist somewhere else? If so, the article doesn't say where, so it's not clear why this is a defining characteristic. Not all pundits or non-fiction writers are jounalists. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The way you laid it out makes sense. I agree that the subject's current occupation is not journalism. I will remove the identification of as a journalist from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He was a conventional journalist for many years in his youth, then set up Amren, of which he is an editor. "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists...", so yes, being an editor is part of being a journalist by wikipedia's definition. Maybe you or I could argue about whether you think he is or isn't in this context, but I think that distinction is better left to reliable sources who have frequently called him a journalist. Zaostao (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Very few people know Taylor primarily as a journalist, even in the sense which includes editors, because American Renaissance is not widely accepted as a news outlet. That he was a journalist in the past, briefly at Washington Post and again at PC Magazine (sort of) are distractions. MOS:BLPLEAD advises against "overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable." I don't see strong signs that he's notable for his journalism, specifically, so I think that applies here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Grayfell (talk) on this point. He's notable for one reason only: his promotion of white nationalism as an ideology. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources that focus on Taylor are writing about him because he's a white nationlist - not because he's a journalist (or author, for that matter). I'd be all for taking "author" and "journalist" out of the lead because that's simply not what he's known for. At a minimum, the main descriptor for him should be "white nationalist" in the lead.

While other editors may be (and have been) more diplomatic than I am, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade here: the only reason any editor wants to eliminate (or move further down) the term "white nationalist" is because of the feeling that that term paints Taylor in a negative light. To that I would respond, if a subject makes his primary mission in life the promotion of white nationalism, why on earth would Misplaced Pages describe him in any other way? I'm changing the lead back to the way it stood for months. Rockypedia (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You're being very hostile about this, where have I tried to take white nationalism out of the lede? And where have I said that I think white nationalism paints him in a bad light? Wouldn't I try to take out, I don't know, maybe the white supremacist and racist mentions if that was my aim?

He spends over 10 years as a conventional journalist, then is the editor of a journal/publication/webzine/whatever for 20+ years and sites such Washington Post state him as being "Jared Taylor, journalist", yet he's still not a journalist? And he's not an author despite publishing multiple books and there being a bibliography section in the article? I'm sorry, but that is simply absurd. Zaostao (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not a journalist, or an author. I said he's known for, and notable for, being a white nationalist. Do you dispute that? Rockypedia (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I said he's a journalist and is known for being a journalist by WaPo among others, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

One more point to remember - the lead summarizes the body. There's nothing in the body about Taylor being a journalist. Add it there first, and then we can talk about whether it's significant enough to add to the lead. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Rockypedia's arguments are convincing. This would be my preferred version for the lead. Moreover, the second sentence in the lead states that the subject is an editor, so the journalism angle is already covered. Add: I combined the first two sentences for a more comprehensive opening:

• Samuel Jared Taylor is an American white nationalist and the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a webzine often described as a white supremacist publication.

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's alright I suppose, but the 'author' description must be re-added as there's a whole books and bibliography section that's not represented in the lede. Zaostao (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He's an author of books primarily related to white nationalism. If he'd been writing horror novels, or anything else, at the same time that he's been running AmRen, and reliable sources were talking about those books as the primary focus of multiple articles, then I could of course see adding "author" in the first sentence of the lead. Since he hasn't, and they haven't, calling him an "author" in the first sentence would be like calling Tiger Woods a serial cheater in the first sentence of his article - yes, that fact is true, but it's not what he's primarily known for. Rockypedia (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He's an author, he's written several books. The content of those books are related to a variety of topics, more so race realism than white nationalism yet race realism has been removed from the lede. The Wall Street Journal also states him as "Jared Taylor, author" and then afterwards mentions his ideology, yet you personally think differently so the article must reflect your opinions instead of what is published in the WSJ? I'll ask you again, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you're still clinging to the random order of nouns in one Washington Post article as justification for your whitewashing, when the overwhelming majority of sources refer to Taylor as a white nationalist, first, foremost, and sometimes as nothing BUT a white nationalist. I like the Washington Post, too. Here's one article from them - it's titled "Hear a white nationalist’s robocall urging Iowa voters to back Trump". I'll give you three guesses who the article is about. Here's another hint, that article doesn't refer to him once as an author or journalist.

I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. If you want to change the lead, report me to an admin. Watch how quickly you lose that battle. Rockypedia (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

He's notable enough as an author for The Wall Street Journal to describe him as such, he has written several books and the body of the article contains detail about his work as an author and a bibliography section -- isn't the lede supposed to represent the body?

I've also never argued against the white nationalism tag so i'm not sure why you keep creating that strawman, and you didn't answer my question, since you're just disregarding sources such as the WSJ because it doesn't fit your narrative, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? If that's the case, why shouldn't everyone just write articles based on original research and feelings? Zaostao (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. As we've all said, he's an author and some sources mention that, but that's not the threshold Misplaced Pages uses for the lead. Most of his books are published by his own foundation, making them essentially self-published. None of the content in this article on his books, including the two published by reputable houses, is supported by independent sources. Misplaced Pages doesn't use primary sources for notability, and the lead summarizes notability. Michelle Obama is a gardener, Tiger Woods is a philander, and Jared Taylor is an author. All of these are sourcable, but none of them belong in the first paragraph of their articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Rockypedia (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

'Author', or some other mention of his books, has to be mentioned somewhere if the lede is to represent the body. Also, strangely, Michelle Obama is stated as a lawyer and writer in the first line of her article. Shouldn't the "I'm not disputing that she once worked as a lawyer, nor that she's a writer. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what she's known for. She's known for being Obama's wife. Period. End of story." reasoning apply for her too? There's reliable sources supporting that she's a writer and there's information about her work as a writer in the body of the article, sure, but she's mainly known for being Obama's wife, right? Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence of that article is "She is married to the 44th and current President of the United States, Barack Obama..." Was that supposed to be a gotcha or something? Read MOS:BLPLEAD. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"second sentence", yes; unless you're saying the white nationalist description should be moved to the second sentence in this article, i'm not sure what you're getting at. Also doesn't that "activities they took part in or roles they played" line in the link policy and your Mrs. Obama example, along with the lede having to represent the body, mean the author description of Mr. Taylor be in the lede? Zaostao (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It was intended as a quick comparison to point out how absurd it is to pick one specific (and flattering) aspect to the exclusion of all greater context, not a direct 1:1 comparison, so dwelling on this further becomes pedantic. Michelle Obama is far, far more notable than Taylor, and the lead of her article is naturally going to be longer and arranged differently. While her notability is derived from her husband's, it's not confined to that, and unlike Taylor, there's a glut of sources about her, including dedicated book-length biographies by reputable publishers. Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. I hope it's obvious that Taylor and Obama are radically different in many, many ways, and their articles should be, also. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You were the one who brought us Mrs. Obama, not me, so don't complain about the comparison. Also, the "Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you believe your own opinions on the matter trump that of sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top of this discussion stating that "Taylor is a prolific author", and to believe that is kinda WP:OR, no? Zaostao (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus in this discussion, on this talk page, is that Taylor's notability is confined to being a white nationalist. Zaostao is the only editor to disagree. If Zaostao disagrees with this consensus, his next option is to take it to arbitration. This discussion is simply going in circles, arguing with one editor who is acting like a dog with a bone, and I recommend we all close it. Rockypedia (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is to use OR instead of reliable sources? I still see no reason as to why author would not be included; there's reliable sources stating Mr. Taylor as an author, there's a bibliography section and lots of detail in the body of the article about him being an author. Also, wouldn't it be expected that someone would be like a "dog with a bone" in a discussion with two sides? Isn't that what talk pages are for? Or am I supposed to argue against myself and support the use of OR instead of reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, you're taking us in circles. If you want the lead changed, take it to arbitration. I'm done wasting time on this talk page. I'll weigh in if and when you elevate this. I look forward to the justification you'll present. Rockypedia (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not answering my questions so I have to ask them again. He's stated as an author by sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top states him as "a prolific author", the article contains a bibliography section as well as a lot of detail on him being an author, but, because of your personal opinion, only white nationalist can be mentioned in the lede? Answer this, do you think your own personal opinion supersedes reliable sources? -- if not, why are you disregarding reliable sources for your own opinions? Zaostao (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 3: RfC?

A RfC may be another option. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Author or not, prolific or not, he's only notable for being a white nationalist. The more I think about it, the more I think it's focusing on trivial details to misrepresent the central point the sources all make. Were not saying he isn't an author, we're saying that it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead just because a handful of sources use that word to describe him. Saying he's an author in the lead is implying that's why he's notable, which is a subtle kind of editorializing. He's not an author and a white nationalist, as though those were otherwise unrelated. He's an author on books about white nationalism, most of which he published himself. His one and only non-white-nationalist book is obscure and is not substantially covered by any sources. It's incidental to his notability. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To use your example again; "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is an American lawyer...", why is that mentioned in the lede (and as the first description) when the vast, vast majority of people know her as Mrs. Obama only? Isn't that editorialising by your definition as it implies that's what she is notable for? Also, you've clearly not read any of Taylor's books, or maybe don't know what white nationalism is -- imagine black nationalism of Malcolm X (who's stated as a "Muslim minister"), except white and with less advocacy of violence, as they're much more related to "race realism" than white nationalism, yet the "race realist" bit was taken out of the lede. And I have to say this again, the "only notable for being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you think your own opinion on the matter is more important than sources such as the WSJ which deem his status as an author notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author". Zaostao (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is going in circles. An RfC may be a good idea to get wider inputs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not had my questions answered as to why author would not be included so I have to ask them again.

Since there are reliable sources who think that Taylor's status as an author is notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author," or even "prolific author," since there's a bibliography section and a lot of detail about the fact that he's an author in the body of the article (lede should represent the body?) and since there's only personal opinions (how does any editor have the authority to state that a subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree?) stating that he's not notable as an author, why should the lede not state that he's an author? Zaostao (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You've had your questions answered by multiple people. Repeating the question over and over isn't productive just because you don't understand or agree with the answers. If you want to put in a proper WP:RFC, go for it, but first rephrase it so that it's not absurdly loaded, please. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind showing me where my question was answered? Fundamentally it comes down to you (random editor(s)) stating that the subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree. What authority do you have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when RS disagree? Please try to answer this without saying that I'm going in circles or repeating myself. Zaostao (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 4: The Answer

Here it is the answer: "I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What authority do you (random editor(s)) have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when WP:RS disagree? Zaostao (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates on a consensus basis, and in this case the consensus is against using "author". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You just agreed that he is an author, and reliable sources state his status as an author is notable enough to proclaim him as such. Representing NPOV would be to use RS to describe who Jared Taylor is, fairly and without editorial bias. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he isn't an author, but not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence, and that's decided by consensus about what the sources say. The consensus as I understand it is that sources may mention that he's an author, but they all overwhelmingly focus on his white nationalism, not his self-publishing career. That's as clear an answer as I can give, so I see no point in playing this game any further. Be mindful of WP:3RR, which it looks like you've already gone over accounting for previous discussions on this. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention his being an author -- you removed the American authors category, I think. The article mentions that he "authored" books, and has a bibliography section, but doesn't actually state that he's an author anywhere. I agree that not everything belongs in the first sentence but his status as an author is not even disputed by yourselves so i'm not sure why it shouldn't be in the lede. Also, despite how it may seem, I don't actually care about this that much or even think it's of much importance having it in the first sentence as it really won't influence many people's opinions - nor do I think white nationalist is anymore of a slur than black nationalist, but author must be included somewhere if a NPOV is to be represented so how about this:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online 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.

If you don't care about it that much, then you're just being disruptive for no good reason. If you do care about it, file an RFC, as has been recommended by at least three editors. Your personal opinions of white nationalism vs. black nationalism are a non sequitur. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See italics. Obviously I care to extent and obviously you do too or you wouldn't have challenged it. You also didn't comment on the suggestion... what is the point of talk pages exactly? Zaostao (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 5: Please start an RfC

The current consensus is clearly against this wording. The discussion is now in five parts, and is going in circles. This is beginning to border on disruptive editing with the 3RR. I suggest an RfC be started to avoid endless discussions here. Otherwise, pls see WP:STICK. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong this wording?

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online 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.

Zaostao (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not how RFC works, if that's what you're trying to do. You need to follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Additionally, the wording is not acceptable. It's far too leading, for one thing, and for another it's too open-ended. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start a RfC, I was asking a question. I really don't see why this needs to be escalated, what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We've already explained that multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you said "not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence." I made a concession and you're not responding to the concession, you're still talking about the previous suggestion. What is wrong with 'author' being in the second sentence? It doesn't interfere with the white nationalist description in any way, and you admitted yourself, agreeing with reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal, that he is an author. So what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a liar: You keep saying "reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal" as if there's more than one. You cherry-picked the one article out of hundreds about him that happens to describe him as an author, and even that article isn't about him; he's mentioned only in passing. You know exactly what you're doing. He's completely self-published - you can write a book, and publish it yourself, but that doesn't make you notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article about yourself. The fact that he has self-published books is mentioned in the lead. Consensus is that that's the most accurate way to describe it. You refuse to accept that consensus. Fine, I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong - knowing you're wrong is enough for me. Case closed. You want to re-open it? Take it to an RfC. Don't want to do that? Your other option is to sit there and leave the page alone. You will never make the change you want by forcing it unilaterally. It's not going to happen. That's not the way this site works. Rockypedia (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is more than one, just look even to the top of this discussion. The book cited there lists Mr. Taylor as a "prolific author." Also, saying that he's "completely self-published" is simply an untruth; read the article, specifically the bibliography section, he's not "completely self-published." Although maybe you're just being hyperbolic. Also, you haven't answered what is wrong with the above wording. It's completely different to all else which has been brought up before yet it hasn't been commented on. Zaostao (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 6: WP:NOTAFORUM

This discussion is no longer about an improvement to the article (as the proposed wording is not deemed an improvement and has been rejected). I suggest the discussion be hatted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've asked all three of you what is wrong with this wording:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online 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.

and none of you have said what is wrong with it. Creating new sections to deflect questions is the reason why I have to ask these questions again. And then you state that i'm "repeating myself" despite the fact that you never actually answered my question. Please just answer, what is wrong with the above wording? It doesn't interfere or "bury" the white nationalism description, and all three have you agreed with me that Taylor is an author. So what is wrong wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)