Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 28 August 2017

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Montana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months

New Discussion: Compromise

Even though multiple reliable sources call Richard a white supremacist, it is clear that not all of them do. Labeling someone a white supremacist when there is contradicting evidence (such as Richard himself rejecting a white supremacist label) is in my opinion a violation of Misplaced Pages's no original research policy. Even if you disagree, calling him a white supremacist has without a doubt only caused problems. Therefore, I propose that we change the first paragraph to only mention his profession. Such as: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" or something like that. We could then make a separate paragraph stating that his views have been described as white supremacist, citing all sources used to call him a white supremacist. In my opinion, we shouldn't use people's political views, particularly something as taboo as white supremacy, as someone's main descriptor, especially if they reject the label. Doing that violates the no original research policy by taking labels from select sources and using that as a descriptor. Also, saying with absolute certainty " is a white supremacist" and saying a few sentences later " has stated that he rejects the label "white supremacist"" seems contradictory. I'll leave everyone to discuss this issue and hopefully get some consensus before I attempt this compromise.

I'll tag some involved editors to help:

• DrFleischman
• Zigzig20s
• Nomoskedasticity
• Rockypedia
• Electrosharksin
• Crillfish
• JRBx45x
• Grayfell
• EvergreenFir

TheBD2000 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We just had a lengthy RfC about this. This is not an OR violation as it's sourced and an accurate representation of how reliable sources describe him. OR would be me saying "Spencer said he likes Whites more than people of color.(source) Therefore he's a racist." Please remove the RfC template per WP:STICK. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What he said. The fact that Spencer rejects a label he doesn't like is irrelevant: James Earl Ray claims he's innocent, but that doesn't stop Misplaced Pages from calling him a murderer. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work because James Earl Ray was convicted of murdering MLK, so he legally did it. Calling Spencer a white supremacist is only based on various opinions. Not facts. I think that it violates the no original research policy. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You "think" it violates WP:OR? You're wrong, for several reasons. First and foremost, you've set up a false equivalency; you can't be "convicted" of being a white supremacist, and being "convicted" of something isn't the be-all end-all of determining what a subject is notable for. James Earl Ray is notable for being a murderer; Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist. The lead notes that he personally doesn't like that label. We've been over this ad nauseum, and you're bringing nothing new. Rockypedia (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work... Nope, that argument is exactly what you're trying to put over, namely that because Spencer (and Ray) don't like their well-earned labels, Misplaced Pages is required to insert some mushy waffling.

... based on various opinions. So, basically, you don't understand reliable sources, then? Perhaps you should put down the shovel and stop digging. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheBD2000: Please explain why you did not notify everyone involved in the previous RFC. --NeilN 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, because at that time, I didn't know who Richard Spencer was nor did I know this page existed. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC tag. @TheBD2000: Before you do something like this on a page subject to discretionary sanctions make sure you know what you're doing. No discussion prior to starting this RFC and improper notifications indicate lack of good judgement. --NeilN 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• This has already been exhaustively discussed and I don't see any dramatically new points being raised. I suppose the one possible exception is the line "...has without a doubt only caused problems". I don't agree with that. Being accurate is a goal, not a problem. He is only notable for being a white supremacist. Altering accurate wording just because some people don't like it seems a lot like political correctness. No dice. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• There's no reason to revisit this. We just had an rfc that established a strong consensus, you are not going to have much luck trying to change that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a very strange thing to fight over. I come to this page as a curious novice and I see the very first sentence stating "Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. I go, "great! this is what I'm looking for!" Then I click on the source and see a bunch of links that you call "reliable sources" that are all pretty much saying the same thing: Richard Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because..." I find the reasoning of many of those editorials very dualistic and weak. From what I can tell, you guys are saying, "This guy is a White Supremacist because most people believe he is." Since you obviously have an agenda to shame and educate the alt-right (and there is nothing wrong with having an agenda), wouldn't you be more effective to not have such a provocative stance and let the facts stand by themselves? Do what you want to do, all I know is I'm not reading anything after the first sentence.S2pid80it (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My main argument here is that calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist based on various opinions seems like a violation of the no original research policy. Especially since not all reliable sources call him that. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reread NOR. Opinions from reliable sources are fine. Opinions from editors are not. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Objection to RfC. This RfC is inherently disruptive since it comes on the heels of basically the same RfC that came to a pretty clear consensus. There is no explanation as to what has changed in the meantime or why the consensus would be any different this time around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate this being framed as a "compromise." "Compromise" implies that it is designed to settle a dispute. But there is no dispute. The dispute is over. Accept it. Move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I support the proposed change, and I thank User:TheBD2000 for raising the issue. Not all sources agree on "white supremacist" by any stretch of the imagination, as The New York Times calls him a "white nationalist" ("White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House."). However, as much as I want to improve Misplaced Pages and I have zero interest whatsoever in being quoted out of context or falsely accused of whitewashing anything, I fear we will never reach consensus, as the previous discussion about this was closed when we considered using the NPOV phrase "white separatist". So, I give up. This is a lost cause, pun unintended. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Objection to RfC. As has been pointed out already, we settled this exact question fairly recently. It was an exhaustive RfC and because it didn't come out the way TheBD2000 wanted (by overwhelming consensus, it should be noted), he has started another one. There's no new info being offered. There are no new arguments being offered. The small number of editors in favor of removing the "white supremacist" descriptor have an agenda to whitewash Spencer's image and aren't interested in making Misplaced Pages better overall. Rockypedia (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How about changing the first paragraph to "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." and then using the previous sources for that. The change would make this article less controversial and that edit would not be in the least way detrimental. Could that work? TheBD2000 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, we just went through this. You're not the first person to try to soften Spencer's image by changing the lead. You probably won't be the last. But at the end of the day, consensus is that the current lead accurately and dispassionately summarizes what Spencer is primarily notable for. Rockypedia (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But what is the problem with my proposed edit, Rockypedia? It would only change this article for the better. We could still acknowledge his accusations of being a white supremacist, but we could use his actual profession as his descriptor. The big problem I see in this article is the use of the tense is. By saying that he is a white supremacist, we're saying it with absolute certainty. However, we cannot be absolutely certain that he is a white supremacist, especially when only some reliable sources call him one and he himself rejects the label (which is in my opinion a violation of WP:NOR). We do know however that he is a public speaker and commentator and yada-yada-yada. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal and any reasonable editor could agree (if we disregard consensus before I came on scene). TheBD2000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Since changes very similar to these have already been discussed and rejected, it's unrealistic to expect us to rehash this yet again. Presenting it as reasonable, even in good faith, doesn't make it reasonable. Put simply, he's notable for being a white supremacist publisher and a white supremacist public speaker. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, and downplaying the only reason he even has an article would be exactly that. No fringe theories, no euphemisms, no gentle PR games, no weasel-word nonsense pretending there's some profound philosophical nuance to how he describes his flavor of pretentious racism. Please drop the stick and find something else to do. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the talk page section Playing right into his hand, this issue was previously discussed. (I'm just finding this section now.) When these editors made, in my opinion, good points, they were ignored. Richard Spencer is notable for founding a couple companies and being a public speaker and commentator, but there is no reason to call him a white supremacist when you can use something less insulting than that term. TheBD2000 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources call him that. Consensus was for that term. You don't like it, we get that. But the glue factory is overstocked at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheBD2000: Your above two posts make it sound more and more like you are advocating the previous RFC should be ignored simply because you weren't part of it and disagree with the outcome. Please drop that line of argument. --NeilN 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note this is no longer an RFC. If enough support appears for a new alternative then an RFC could be held. --NeilN 20:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revival

Time to revive this. Read WP:NPOV. It states clear as day: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. So consensus does not override the NPOV policy.

WP:YESPOV says: Avoid stating opinions as facts Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are clearly opinions and not facts.

It also says: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Richard Spencer has been called both a white supremacist and a white nationalist by many sources. Both assertions have been undoubtedly contested and thus both should be treated as opinions and not facts.

Finally, WP:IMPARTIAL says that Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. The current version of Misplaced Pages is engaging in the dispute by matter-of-factly calling Spencer a white supremacist.

I stand by my previous proposal to write the opening paragraph like this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." That wording is not objectionable in the slightest way.

In a nutshell, I hope that all editors can see past their own bias against Richard Spencer. I never said that I was a fan of his, because I'm definitely not. I just think that attacking him seriously damages the reputation of Misplaced Pages. THE DIAZ 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We avoid stating facts as opinions, and it is a fact that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist. We include his opinion disagreeing with that characterization, but that opinion does not outweigh the statements of a wide variety of unquestionable reliable sources. The consensus on this subject is clear and convincing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, it is not a fact that he is a white supremacist, various opinion pieces call him that, but it is not factual. No one's opinion can be factual unless the words come out of their mouth. Secondly, some reliable sources call him a white nationalist, and some call him a white supremacist. As per WP:YESPOV, If different reliable sources make conflicting 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 is indisputably a direct violation of that policy. One final note, the main section of WP:NPOV says that 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. Is it certain that calling him a white supremacist violates the NPOV policy. THE DIAZ 20:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: I think there's a confusion between the truth and a neutral point of view. NPOV is about accurately and fairly reflecting reliable sources. The guidance on opinions (WP:YESPOV) is generally about when reliable sources are conflicting about their descriptions or when discussing notable but individual opinions. It states that "As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" (emphasis mine). To the best of my understanding, sources call Spencer either a white supremacist or a white nationalist. This difference in labeling is not, in my opinion, "conflict" among reliable sources as the no sources assert the other label is incorrect. Rather, there's variation in the label used, but no dispute about those labels. Sources use "white supremacist" (USA Today, AL.com, BBC 1 and 2, The Independent, CNN, Inside Higher Ed, VICE, The Detroit News, NY Times, Missoulian). Buzzfeed labels him a white nationalist but his "think tank" as white supremacist (). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses nationalist and supremacist in the same article () but in another article calls him just a supremacist (). Others call him a white nationalist (LA Times 1 and 2, Boston Globe, WaPo, Time, NY Mag, NY Times, The Guardian). A few call him a neo-Nazi (NBC affiliate WPMI, NBC News). Are there any reliable sources that contest these labels? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The word "conflicting" is defined as "incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those reports are arguably contradictory but they do vary. Thus, those reports are conflicting. Misplaced Pages stating with certainty that Spencer is a white supremacist is obviously taking sides. White supremacy is a political ideology or opinion. Opinion is defined as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are only stating their opinion, not fact. As someone's opinion cannot be verified unless they voice it themselves. That's just common sense. WP:YESPOV says that opinions can't be asserted as facts. THE DIAZ 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources aren't stating these labels as opinions though. They're stated as fact. Additionally, conflicting, in my reading of NPOV, is when sources disagree or use mutually exclusive labels/descriptions. But moving past that, what are you suggesting we do to address what you see as a problem? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: They are stating their opinion as they can't read Richard Spencer's mind, and the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces. but that can be argued about all day. Moving past that, I suggest that we change the opening paragraph to: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and we make a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." (The last one can be worded differently.) That way, nothing in the article is controversial or libelous (NOT a legal threat), and everyone wins. THE DIAZ 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See, "the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces" is utterly incorrect. The sources linked above and in the article are not opinion pieces. They are verifiable statements by reliable sources. An opinion piece would be an op-ed or a self-published source like a blog or guest column. The sources are unwavering in their description of Spencer as either a White nationalist or a White supremacist. Part of Misplaced Pages's venerability policy as well as WP:NPOV is that we reflect reliable sources without inserting our own bias/POV, even if those sources disagree with our views or are possibly wrong. The essay WP:TRUTH explains this well. We are a tertiary source which summaries reliable ] by giving due weight to the various aspects of a topic based on the totality of those reliable sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sources that describe Spencer as a white supremacist are opinion pieces. He has also been described as a white nationalist and a white separatist. As we all know, those terms contradict each other. Thus, Misplaced Pages is taking sides by calling him a white supremacist and violating WP:YESPOV. Also keep in mind that it is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libelous material. THE DIAZ 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Diaz: I think you do not understand what an opinion piece is. These links might help: WP:BIASED (and WP:RS in general) and WP:POVS. A news article from BBC or NYTimes are not opinion pieces unless they're in a section for op-eds or guest columns. WP:LIBEL is for unsourced libelous material. All info here is sourced with reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have already read all of those. WP:BIASED says that "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Also WP:NPOV states clear as day: 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. So WP:YESPOV overrides the other policies and even consensus. THE DIAZ 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice that the examples are ascribing opinions to individuals. We don't have that here; the opinions are by news sources generally, not individuals. I feel I've said my part. If others with to try to further explain this to you, they can. It is clear that YESPOV is not readily applicable in this case as we don't have opinions from individuals and we are not dealing with op-eds. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"White supremacist," "white nationalist" and "white separatist" aren't contradictory, though - not in the least. All are various facets of the belief system that white people are somehow a special, chosen people superior to others and who should establish, by force, systems of legal segregation or even ethnic cleansing to expel "inferior" races from places where whites choose to live. I'm unaware of any serious viewpoint that those terms contradict or conflict - to the contrary, they are entirely complementary. The reliable sources cited here do not treat the terms as contradicting or conflicting and that is what ultimately matters on Misplaced Pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Calling him a white nationalist is indirectly refusing to say that he is a white supremacist, thus contradicting the term. White separatism and white supremacy are two different subgroups of white supremacy; one can't be both, thus those two terms contradict each other and they all contradict each other. THE DIAZ 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think your extreme parsing of these terms is reflected by the reliable sources. Any white "separation" would inherently involve forcible expulsion of people of other races, and such an act is inherently supremacist inasmuch as it treats white people as superior to those other races. Again, more to the point, the sources say what they say about Spencer and we rely on those sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: BUT THEY CONFLICT! No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once! WP:YESPOV states as clear as day: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. This article CLEARLY violates that rule by saying Richard B. Spencer is a white supremacist. Even though there is conflicting evidence in sources. What in the world is wrong with my proposed change?! THE DIAZ 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once!"- that's your opinion, and pretty clear WP:OR. I disagree and have a different opinion. But neither of our opinions matter. Only what reliable secondary sources say. You're beating a dead horse at this point. Sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: The Southern Poverty Law Center says: "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies." Keep in mind the word "or". It's one or the other. Not both. Also, everyone knows the term "white supremacist". So sources that don't call him a white supremacist are, technically, refusing to call him that. Some even call him a Neo-Nazi! We all know there's a difference there. Ergo, different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about the matter, and WP:YESPOV kicks in and we must treat all of his labels as opinions and not facts. THE DIAZ 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you need an English class. "Or" in that sentence doesn't preclude the possibility of both being the case. But I think you know that, and you're bending yourself (and logic) at this point in order to force your POV onto this issue, and it's been my experience that discussions of this type are useless. Sorry. If you want to discuss something rationally, I'll hear you out. On this issue.... dead horse. Rockypedia (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming WP:IDHT/WP:TENDENTIOUS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I am in no way being irrational here. The conjunction "or" is defined as "used to link alternatives". These sources are conflicting on the issue of what to label him. Some saying "white supremacist", some saying "white separatist" (they are NOT the same thing), some saying "white nationalist" (ergo refusing to label him as either subgroup), and some even calling him a Neo-Nazi (which is indisputably different than the three previous labels). For the umpteenth time, here is what WP:YESPOV (which is NEVER overridden by other policies or even consensus) says: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. "Conflicting" means "Incompatible or at variance; contradictory." Those four terms are contradictory and they ARE at variance. Hence, that paragraph violates the rule. NOTHING is wrong with changing it to make the article less of an attack on him. THE DIAZ 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You have 3 rather experienced editors disagreeing with your interpretation of NPOV here. The terms have different meanings, but the sources are not conflicting by using different but related terms. Conflicting sources is when they fundamentally are at odds with each other. That is not the case here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Uh, no, pick up a dictionary. They conflict. They vary and they are contradictory. This is the English language that we're talking about here. WP:YESPOV does NOT say that conflicting sources are "funadamentally at odds with each other". What you're doing is just making a pathetic last-minute attempt to defend this libelous version of his article even though it's a clear violation of NPOV. Accept it. THE DIAZ 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no... you're the only one who seems to think these are "conflicting assertions". EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Let me spell it out for you real slowly. RICHARD. SPENCER. HAS. BEEN. CALLED. MANY. THINGS. . . SOME. OF. WHICH. ARE. CON-TRA-DIC-TOR-Y. . . ALL. OF. THEM. ARE. AT. VARIANCE. . . THUS. THEY. ARE. CON-FLIC-TING. AND. VIOLATE. THE. WP:YESPOV. POLICY. Is that clear? THE DIAZ 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: no, sorry. Can you repeat that? I don't understand the extraneous punctuation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The summary of this argument, Richard Spencer has been called various things by various sources, some of which are contradictory, all are at variance. That meets the definition of conflicting, thus, they conflict. Ergo, the current article's opening paragraph violates the WP:YESPOV policy. Better? THE DIAZ 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: @Zigzig20s: @Nomoskedasticity: @Rockypedia: @Electrosharkskin: @Crillfish: @JRBx45x: @Grayfell: @EvergreenFir: THE DIAZ 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to call the knackers. Nothing has changed since last month. Pinging multiple editors over the exact same issue, yet again, is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Just making sure it doesn't go unnoticed. THE DIAZ 20:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's very obvious. It doesn't make it any less disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz, I don't appreciate being pinged to a discussion quite as disruptive as this. Please drop the stick before this becomes an administrative issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DrFleischman. The Diaz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve here with your pinging (canvassing, really) and your all. caps. yelling. but this is not Facebook. Time to drop this stick. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Libel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Misplaced Pages is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation. THE DIAZ 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No objections to this, huh? THE DIAZ 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz Drop it. This is not a request. --NeilN 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: No defense for the claim? I'm within my rights to challenge this material which could land the Wikimedia foundation and its editors in legal trouble. All I'm trying to do it protect us. Read the policy. THE DIAZ 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: Okay, let me be clearer. You can educate yourself on libel elsewhere. Continue in this vein and I will topic ban you. --NeilN 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apophasis... EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove slanderous claims that Spencer is a white supremacist. It is not based in truth and lacks proper research. If the man has rejected the term multiple times and has labeled himself as something else, he should not be labeled as the slur assigned to him by others. If another page cites a an athlete as a gamer, or cheater yet the athlete has only demonstrated athletics, it would be untruthful and slanderous to label him as anything else.

Misplaced Pages has no place for untruth. Stop lying and wake up. You are only hurting yourselves and others by twisting the real truth Flaxenhair (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note, a discussion has been opened at WP:ANI#Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please just facts

I came to this page in hopes of learning about Richard B. Spencer and to understand the controversy behind him and I see basically an attack piece on him.

The proof that he is a White Nationalist or is cited with a bunch of sources accusing him of being a White Nationalist. Unless he personally wears this label, then you need to change it to "Accused White Nationalist" otherwise, it shows the article as biased and people like me will lose interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He does personally embrace that label. The Wordsmith 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He has repeatedly denied the label. What about the compromise, "While Richard Spencer rejects the label, many people believe he is a White Supremacist"? S2pid80it (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly, and there is a clear consensus to describe Spencer as a white supremacist. We do very prominently note that Spencer disputes the label and prefers to be described as an identitarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason that is being "discussed extensively and repeatedly" is because you are being dismissive of other legitimate points of views. This page is clearly biased, weak on facts, and poorly written. Richard Spencer, in my opinion, has some very dangerous ideas that needs a light shined on it. But if people come here for information and stop reading after the first sentence, what do you accomplish? What is the point of your antipathy? Are you hoping that Richard Spencer will read this and feel ashamed and rethink his ways? From what I can tell about the man, he thrives on this kind of stuff.S2pid80it (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It says he's a White supremacist though. Which is incorrect. He is a White nationalist, not a supremacist. I have posted another section about this, where he directly says he does not support supremacy. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler." Citations, please. Also, denounce Adolf Hitler how? In what context? I know you guys don't like him, but shouldn't you at least try to sound unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk • contribs)

Read the talk page archives about this. WP:STICK EvergreenFir (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

White Supremacist

Spencer has rejected this label numerous times and the concept "white supremacy". From an objective analysis this label actually counteracts with his actual views and political philosophy . It's bias and highly subjective to include it if it has been verified by the person. Instead the only people who label him are belligerents. He has stated that he self identifies as a pan-european nationalist and identitarian. And sees no qualms with those who label him a white nationalist. oF

From 1:53:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3X-6V1a1gk

Discuses it with David Pakman early in the interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKNhjQHWFo --Justforthefun17 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on the definition of white supremacism is subjective, not objective. We go by reliable, independent sources, not original research. We've already discussed this more times than I can count, and WP:PRIMARY interviews are of extremely limited value. If you have nothing new to contribute, this discussion is unproductive. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The AP, New York Times, Slate, CNN, Chronicle of Higher Education, London Evening Standard, and Christian Science Monitor are not "belligerents." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

However, an argument can be made that the sources listed are conflicting on whether he's a supremacist or a nationalist (CNN has called Spencer a nationalist in the past), because he allegedly claims to be a white nationalist, which very much differs from the label of "white supremacist". It should likely be noted that this was previously discussed, but only the categories reference Spencer as a white nationalist. Both should certainly be noted in the article, not just the former, to keep things unbiased. Aleccat 21:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We have been through this a number of times, including in an RfC a few months ago. The consensus was that Spencer should be described solely as a white supremacist because a white supremacist is a type of white nationalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That argument is failing in its one-liner, biased comments, and does not address what I am arguing for at all. Ex: "White supremacist is OK. First, leaving aside refs for the moment, is it true? Yes, it is. Look at this tweet after the Superbowl: 'For the White race, it's never over'". To reiterate: I'm arguing for both to be included in the article, possibly in the lead. That RfC was almost entirely ignorant that, yes, while the ideas of both white supremacists and white nationalists overlap, they surely are different entities. Reliable sources list the terms as being different. Even HuffPost, a liberal-leaning website, differentiates the two. It seems incredibly biased (and clearly able to be challenged) that we can't include both, when this is clearly controversial and no counter-evidence/sources were presented against labelling Spencer as both a nationalist and supremacist. Even beyond the previous statement, some of the comments for labelling Spencer solely a white supremacist/nationalist, included the "both" argument as verifiable. --Aleccat 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Even HuffPost, a liberal-leaning website..." suggests a serious misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages assesses sources, as well as an attempt at false balance. We do not use assumptions about a source's ideology to pit it against other sources in an attempt to find a "middle ground". The distinction between white nationalist and white supremacist is, at most, one of degree, and is widely regarded by academic and journalistic experts as euphemistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Cite some then. --Aleccat 00:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Aleccat, your argument was raised during the RfC and not accepted by the consensus, and not very long ago I might add. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

agree that using terms such as white nationalist or white supremacist to describe how RS has been characterized in the media is insufficiently accurate. He has also been widely characterized as and called a neo nazi by a number or reliable media sources. How he wants to style himself is also something which should be included in the article in a sentence such as, "Richard Spencer, , is a white supremacist who has been variously characterized as a white nationalist and neo nazi. He has rejected these terms and prefers to refer to himself as a . In spite of this, ..." etc. Edaham (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad approach, but two notes/questions. First, we already do say that Spencer rejects he "white supremacist" label and prefers to be called an "identitarian"--in the second sentence! Second, what reliable sources describe him as a neo-Nazi? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks, I was hoping you'd ask - sorry about the blank refs, I'm on my phone. One or two sources label him outright as a NN, while others highlight his ties with NN supporters. I think the word should be in the lede somewhere as it is so frequently used when referring to him and his activities.

• http://observer.com/2017/05/richard-spencer-neo-nazis-confederate-symbols/
• https://thetab.com/us/auburn/2017/04/12/richard-spencer-auburn-1189
• https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html?referer=https://www.google.com.hk/
• http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/21/punched-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-turns-his-back-on-pro-paedophile-milo-yiannopoulos-6462636/
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-spencer-neo-nazi-alt-right-christine-fair-a7750186.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/richard-spencer-whitefish-neo-nazi-march
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-leading-alt-right-movement/

Not enough to say RS is a neo-nazi, but more than enough to say

a) RS has been characterized as a neo-Nazi in the press or

b) repeated allegations of ties to neo-Nazi supporters have been made in the press.

I think something like that should go in the lede.

Edaham (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I went through all of those sources, and they all fail verification. None of them are reliable sources that call Spencer a neo-Nazi in their own voice. Just opinion sources, unreliable headlines, and quotes of other folks calling him that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand and agree. The word neo-nazi certainly does crop a lot around him though doesn't it? It is at the very least verifiable (from those sources) that NNs are attracted to his ranks. I think that's already mentioned in the article though. Thank you very much for taking your time to go through those links. My apologies if I created work for you. Edaham (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are those sources written in NPOV that label him a "white supremacist"? , I think its fair to state that is considered to be a white supremacist by many people and groups, not write as an objective fact. But to apply in the introduction with no counter balance is non NPOV. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue has already been decided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Sorry to jump back in here, but consensus can change. There seems to be many editors objecting to the current wording in this BLP. Maybe it's time for another RfC. THE DIAZ 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I might agree except that an overwhelming number of arguments for removal of the label are not grounded in Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines and have been repeated over and over and over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: My previous claim that it violated WP:YESPOV and WP:LIBEL should probably be worthy of an RfC since neither were previously brought up. THE DIAZ 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought NeilN asked you to drop the libel stick? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: He didn't offer a defense against it though, he just shut me down with threats. I just think we should close all open doors on this paragraph by determining consensus on it with all previously unmentioned rules stated. If consensus in favor of not changing the lead section prevails, we should put an FAQ on the top of this page regarding this issue. Sound like a plan, Stan? THE DIAZ 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Neil's threat aside, I think you misunderstand how the consensus process works. We don't redo RfCs every time someone comes up with a new variation on an old argument that was already considered and rejected. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: "We don't redo RfCs every time someone comes up with a new variation on an old argument that was already considered and rejected." Why? consensus can change. THE DIAZ 02:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it wastes productive editing time and it's disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. THE DIAZ 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We've already discussed these specific issues. You have not introduced any unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Trying to slice old objections as thinly as possible doesn't make them into new objections. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, everyone. I'm jumping in on this discussion because I ran across this article and saw that it began with "white supremacist", which is not an accurate description of Richard Spencer for a few different reasons. I've looked through this talk page and can see that there have been a host of different references to the Misplaced Pages policy already, so I won't paste yet more little clippings from the NPOV article. The reality about this issue is pretty straightforward, and it is that there are no objective sources I've found that say Spencer is a white supremacist. For any of you that have listened to his talks, it is also apparent from his arguments that he does not believe in supremacy of the white race, either. The beliefs that he has expressed, which is of course the only legitimate and objective source that can be used to define his ideology, suggests that he believes that it is best if people keep to their own kind. Another way this idea is often phrased is that homogeneous cultures are generally more successful ones, typically with reference to Asia or Early America. Finally, I would ask those who would otherwise disagree with my angle, consider this: Would you also call the Black Nationalist movement or it's proponents (Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X) Black Supremacist groups? Such an accusation would of course be widely rejected, but they are as legitimate as the claims that Richard Spencer believes in the supremacy of Europeans. I'll be the last to defend any identitarian movement, but the arguments against them cannot be as simple as mislabeling their ideology. --John (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There exists a consensus that sufficient reliable sources describe Spencer as a white supremacist that it is NPOV and due weight to describe him as a white supremacist in this article. As for you being unable to find such sources, they are conveniently listed in this article. (I have not listened to his talks, because I don't make a habit of listening to vile racist nonsense.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"there are no objective sources" ... Have you tried the reference section of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The beliefs that he has expressed, which is of course the only legitimate and objective source that can be used to define his ideology, ... Not "of course." Policy forbids this sort of original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• If reliable sources say he's one, then he's one. This kind of political conviction isn't the same as, say, a religious conviction or sexuality, where the subject's desire matters. He may well want to reject the label, because duh, but this is one of those things where there's a component of reality, not personal choice. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• If someone self-identifies as a white supremacist, then fine. Otherwise, it's completely unacceptable to call him one in Misplaced Pages's voice. It's fine to point out that he's been called a white supremacist, but to state as fact that he is one runs afoul of multiple policies. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The bias of Misplaced Pages has become so out of hand. I don't even like Spencer, but he has clearly said time and time again he is not a white supremacist. He had also never said anything along the lines of "whites are superior to all other races" or "all non-whites are inferior." He has a lot of stupid ideas that I find to be unrealistic and racially charged, but to call him a white supremacist objectively is just so inaccurate. Ktm4391 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. Reliable sources say he's a white supremacist, so we can say he's a white supremacist. If you have a problem with that, consider contacting the editors of the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL

Why are these organizations being used as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.121.254 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017‎

Because they have noteworthy things to say, and there is a broad consensus on Misplaced Pages that these organizations are reliable as long as they're cited with in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The claim by The New York Times that Spencer attacked Jews

I was trying to research this for my own records. Now this article says he went around attacking jews and it was separate from him doing the Hitler Salute, which he claimed was a joke. The only source is The New York Times. The New York Times along with The Washington Post and CNN are extreme propaganda outlets and not reliable news sources. The New York Times said, "He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German." Now I searched and searched the internet for any other source that also said it. All other newspapers that claim it simply cite The New York Times.

Then I founded a Snopes article. Snopes itself is a far left website, that uses fact-checking to push a poitical agenda more than similar leftist fact-checkers. Despite this, Snopes said it was not true. Quoting Snopes:

Spencer did refer to “soulless golems” in his speech, a reference to Jewish folklore about beings magically created from clay or mud. But as Reason editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown (among others) pointed out, Spencer’s mention of “soulless golems” (which occurs around the 3:00 mark here) was used in the context of questioning the humanity and intelligence of members of the “mainstream media,” not specifically that of Jews:

Spencer smiled when referring to “the mainstream media” as Lügenpresse, a term meaning “lying press” that was commonly used in Nazi-era German propaganda to describe non-party-friendly (e.g., Jewish, Communist, and foreign) news sources.

So Spencer was attacking the mainstream media rather than jews. Snopes gave a video of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE

2:30 he says, "The mainstream media, or perhaps we should refer to them in the original German, Lügenpresse. The mainstream media never did. This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous Podcast hosts, dissidents working deep within the Beltway right, proved that they objectively understood politics better than the Republican strategists and political consultants snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It's not just that they are leftists and cucks. It's not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soul-less golem animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking point John Oliver stated the night before. But even though we always took Trump seriously, there is still a moment of unreality, or perhaps a reality that is too painfully intense."

The term Lügenpresse was used in Germany long before Hitler was even born and the Misplaced Pages article on it says not say it originally was antisemitic.

So there we go, The New York Times lied again. This does not rule out him saying something antisemitic at another time. But the incident The New York Times and others who repeated their claims cite was a lie.

Perhaps someone can find an incident where he actually did make an antisemitic remark? Stoodpointt (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At the bottom of the SNOPES article you cited - "Which is not to say that Spencer and his group are not well-documented white nationalists. Footage from the speech also shows supporters raising their hands in the manner of the Nazi salute, and Spencer smiled when referring to “the mainstream media” as Lügenpresse, a term meaning “lying press” that was commonly used in Nazi-era German propaganda to describe non-party-friendly (e.g., Jewish, Communist, and foreign) news sources." - DN (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes the Hitler Salute was a different thing. The New York Times said he also made some rant outside of this against jews. I cannot find any evidence that he actually did things outside of the Hilter salute. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate things in an attempt to push your point. First, the New York Times said Spencer "railed against Jews." The Snopes article does not dispute this; the Snopes article addresses a CNN chyron that stated "Spencer questions if Jews are people." In fact, the New York Times (the very outlet you called unreliable) got that story right in the very same article - "He mused about the political commentators who gave Mr. Trump little chance of winning - 'One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem.'" The fact that CNN got wrong wasn't wrong in the NY Times at all; it was dead-on correct; Spencer did question if the commentators were people, and that what the NYT said. That fact has nothing to do with the fact that he also railed against Jews in the very same speech. In other words, the whole premise that you put forth in the title of this section is 100% false. Rockypedia (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Stoodpointt, I think you are reading into it too much. SEE WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"(the very outlet you called unreliable)" - I did no such thing, you are thinking of someone else. Please try to attribute things editors say properly. DN (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My entire response was directed at Stoodpointt's initial rambling; sorry for the confusion, there was an edit conflict that came up as I tried to post and I may have placed my rebuttal in the wrong place, slightly. Rockypedia (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay so then there's two issues. (1) Was the "soulless golem" phrase used in nazi propaganda somewhere or did Spencer come up with that himself? When I've web searched "soulless golem", it only speaks of Richard Spencer so if say Goebbels mentioned it then it would make it clear he was quoting nazi propaganda. Whereas if he invented that part himself then he was using a jewish metaphor to attack the mainstream media. Spencer used it in reference to John Oliver as the puppetmaster and John Oliver is not jewish. Then (2), as for the term, Lügenpresse, Misplaced Pages's own article says it became popular in German revolutions of 1848–49 and I searched that "German revolutions of 1848–49" page for "jew" and "semit" and with no results it suggests the revolution wasn't something anti-jew. Simply using the term "Lügenpresse" wouldn't qualify as quoting nazi propaganda since one single word is not enough and there's media outlets like Breitbart and The Rebel Media that were jewish-founded and today jewish run and they oppose the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart for instance did a lot of exposing the lies of the mainstream media. The "he quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews" bit makes me think he read one of Goebbels speeches and I can't find evidence of it. If there is some Third Reich propaganda using the term "soulless golem" it would prove he did use nazi propaganda. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Lügenpresse" was used heavily in Nazi propaganda. Just because it was also used as early as the 19th century doesn't change the fact that he was referencing the Nazi use of it. Rockypedia (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't match the "he quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews" claim. The phrase makes it sound like he specifically mentioned jews and he quoted at least a sentence from a Hitler or Goebbels speech, not just a single word. It was a single word which is too small to be a quote. Stoodpointt (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're acting as if each instance stands alone in a vaccum and doesn't prove that he denounced Jews. Are we supposed to act like wondrous children that don't understand the sum total of quoting fascist propaganda, quoting Nazi-era proaganda, "Hail Trump!"'s similarity to "Heil Hitler", and Nazi salutes, and on that basis declare that the New York Times is wrong when it stated that he railed against Jews? Let's not forget that your entire premise, that Snopes debunked the NYT, is completely, 100%, false, as I explained above, because the Snopes article is about CNN's mistake, and the very same quote that was also described by the NYT was described correctly. This entire section is based on a lie that you created. Why don't you have an answer for that? Rockypedia (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you don't like the NYT (which is a WP:RS, despite your diatribe against it), here's a CBS article I found with about a 5-second google search that also remarks on Spencer quoting from Nazi propaganda. Rockypedia (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, firstly, you call what I spent a long time writing, "ramblings". Again per BLP, he never specifically attacked jews. You may as well claim that everyone who has dressed up as Hitler has attacked jews. Spencer during his speech even quoted Theodor Herzl, the Zionist leader who advocated a Jewish homeland in Israel, quoting his famous pronouncement, “If we will it, it is no dream.” Stoodpointt (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Do you have any intention of acknowledging that your title of this entire section is based on your own false premise? Until the answer to both of those is "yes", I won't be wasting any more time getting dragged into discussing Spencer's evasive, pseudointellectual blather, as Grayfell so aptly put it. Rockypedia (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rockypedia here. SEE CITE 1 - DN (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in that big group gives evidence he attacks jews. It only said he is pro white. Many jewish people are white. Stoodpointt (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Bringing up the potential whiteness of Jews is a transparent distraction. Misplaced Pages summarizes reliable sources, and digging through the speech to form your own assessment of it is WP:OR. The Snopes article says nothing either way about the NYT article. The NYT article says that he has "He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German". If you have a problem with the comment, take it up with the NYT. Or don't. Either way this is a waste of time. Your ideological agreement with a source is neither required nor expected for it to be considered reliable, and the New York Times is reliable by Misplaced Pages's standards. If you have a reliable source which actually discusses the NYT claim, you surely would've already mentioned it by now. Instead you're trying to drag us into discussing Spencer's evasive, pseudointellectual blather on its own merit. Misplaced Pages doesn't play that game. We reflect reliable sources with a strong preference towards secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's about as good a summary as we're going to see, I think. Rockypedia (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length fairly recently , so I'd say WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also, your argument that "The New York Times along with The Washington Post and CNN are extreme propaganda outlets and not reliable news sources." is a big red flag. Consensus may change at some point, but even so, the mountain of RS will still be the deciding factor if it comes to a consensus by editors that do not acknowledge WP:RS. DN (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I join the consensus. If the Times had made a mistake here then there would have been an uproar. But the only uproar was about CNN (which was criticized by more than just Snopes). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change May 13 to August 13 for date of Charlottesville march 73.15.1.152 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I realize it's confusing, but the section you're referring to is about the first Charlottesville march, back in May. So it's correct. Rockypedia (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Any article beginning with 'soandso is an American White Supremist' is hard to take seriously as an encyclopedic work.

I make no apology for his political views but the fact remains that this is NOT how encyclopedias are written, particularly where the topic involves a living person.

There is some irony to this: His right to hold his viewpoint and express it is the same one used to malign it. Also, there's the matter that it is improbable that anyone contributing to this article's content has an entry of their own on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.69.145 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017

Charles Manson has a rather prominent Misplaced Pages entry. Does that, in your view, make his opinions more valid here. And which is the article about you, yourself, on Misplaced Pages that you believe elevates your own viewpoint? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a specific change that you are proposing, please phrase it in the form "I think X should be changed to Y" and explain your reasons. Rockypedia (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages didn't choose the term. It came from sources regarding this subject. Edaham (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when the subject of an article is an American White Supremist (sic), then that is EXACTLY how an encyclopedia article should begin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Editor from the Columbus area, I don't think anyone here is maligning Spencer. "White supremacist" is not a slur. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• WP:TRIGGERED - DN (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I also find it highly suspect that he would be labeled as something he doesn't himself claim to be. I believe very strongly that the wording should be changed to remove the term as a factual descriptor. This is the first time I've seen this kind of language used in the first paragraph of a person's Misplaced Pages page. It reads like a slander piece. And Dr. Fleischman, I'm not sure how you can consider being called a "White Supremacist" to not be a pejorative -- would you be alright with being called a white supremacist, assuming you don't yourself identify as such? I also agree with the notion that this tarnishes Misplaced Pages's neutral reputation. I came here to learn more about the man, not to read an opinion piece. Dr.Novick (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd want to know what the reliable sources say Spencer is, along with what Spencer himself says he is. And that's what our article does, in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This has been extensively hashed out over and over and over again on this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a disagreement over the definition of a white supremacist and how it differs from that of a white nationalist. White supremacists believe (as the name would imply) that white people are superior to other races and therefore should be dominant over them. This is in conflict with the beliefs of the group he's most commonly affiliated with (the Alt Right) and with the views he himself has espoused (white nationalism). Or, perhaps this is an assertion that nuance is unimportant in the context of the discussion of political beliefs -- which I think is misguided, at best. To be blunt, I find these opinionated mischaracterizations fairly alarming. I in no way agree with Richard Spencer nor the groups he identifies with, but I believe very strongly in correctly representing individuals' beliefs. I suspect this article will never be corrected, but it will continue to be a bruise on the impartial reputation and underlying idea behind this great site. I find it incredibly unfortunate that so many people in these positions of authority are completely unable to look past their clearly demonstrated bias (and/or ignorance). Dr.Novick (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not going through this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I find it admirable that this one description of all the pages on Misplaced Pages and this talk page have inspired you to register an account, and to weigh in here before you've even made a single edit with the account. I think more people should register and voice their opinions. It's also great that you already seem to be very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, as many new users are not, and it takes them some time to understand how Misplaced Pages works re: reliable sources and all. Rockypedia (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insinuation you're making. To be clear, I've never felt the need to register to add to a Misplaced Pages discussion because I've genuinely never encountered an article that made me cringe this hard after having read the first few sentences. I'm only familiar with the policies insofar as I've read through a few Talk pages over the years (including this one) -- if I've made some serious gaffe, please let me know (taking your comments at face value). I do find the wording of "reliable sources" curious, as that in and of itself is subjective -- although I'll leave that aside for the time being. My primary disagreement is with characterizing someone's beliefs as something other than which they themselves espouse, especially when these beliefs are inarguably negative and highly contentious. Calling someone a "white supremacist" is equivalent to calling someone a "hateful bigot". I genuinely find the attitudes here just as worrisome. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a platform to spread beliefs, by anyone. The impartiality of Misplaced Pages is something else I hold in the highest of regards. Dr.Novick (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Spencer does this professionally -- what would one expect to call him instead? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying Misplaced Pages should present people only in the light of the views they want to publicly claim for themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. That said, I have seen no evidence to convince me that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist beyond news outlets asserting as much without any justification beyond "he's a white activist". I have no doubts that he is a white nationalist, but those are two distinctly different ideologies. As I said previously, nuance in this space is very important. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You hold the impartiality of Misplaced Pages in the highest of regards? What are you smoking? You need to come back down to earth, my Misplaced Pages-loving friend. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but I recall when Misplaced Pages first became well known as one of the first open source knowledge databases. I feel strongly about decentralized/open source systems. I realize that Misplaced Pages may not always be truly neutral, but that doesn't mean that, collectively, we shouldn't make every effort to make it so. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's give our new colleague a chance. (A hale and hearty welcome to Misplaced Pages, by the way.) The article cites numerous RS that identify Spencer as a white nationalist supremacist. If you have RS that say otherwise, by all means, share them. And since you're new, here's a timesaver: Stormfront and similar sites are not RS, so try to avoid sources of that caliber. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I will take your comment at face value and say thank you -- but your Stormfront remark is hard to not take tongue-in-cheek. Without getting too tin-foil-hat-y, I'm suspect of much of the main stream media nowadays. Calling Fox News or the Huffington Post 'legitimate' news sources simply because they're wide spread is something I have a very hard time taking seriously, as an example. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: I do not disagree that he is a white nationalist -- he identifies as such. I vehemently disagree that he is a white supremacist, however. As I've said elsewhere, these are most certainly not the same thing. These people need to be understood before both sides get completely out of control (more so than they already are). Snide hyperbole on a person's wikipedia page is most certainly not going to help matters. I really hope people start taking this entire situation we find ourselves in more seriously. Dr.Novick (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, Dr.Novick, "These people need to be understood"? Do they need a hug? And, eh, which side is out of control? I do believe that people should take this entire situation more seriously, yes, but attempting to "understand" white supremacists is not what I had in mind. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've studied Misplaced Pages, so you know it's all about reliable sources, not editors' viewpoints. If you have RS backing up your claim, present them. Otherwise, to be blunt, it's irrelevant. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

maybe it would be better to discuss this on the RS noticeboa..... oh wait! wp:beans Edaham (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Another idea?

I also wondered about the first line. It's perfectly true... yet it seems... somehow not like an encyclopedia should begin. What about:

"Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white supremacist views." (I would prefer).

Or: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white nationalist views. Spencer rejects the label "white supremacist," and prefers to describe himself as an identitarian, though he is commonly understood to be a white supremacist." ...

Hm, then this seems to call into question the label. I think it's important to make clear that this is what he is.

Apart from that matter, can we remove the picture? I would prefer that we don't have a picture of this person, in case that is possible. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you'll have to present a better reason than your preference. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum, and there has been a clear and persistent consensus to describe the guy as a white supremacist, as supported by our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not "an organizer and speaker who espouses white supremacist views"? Wouldn't that be better? It's simply about how it sounds when you read it. This sounds like a slow high-school student writing a shit essay. "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox, November 12, 1934):136–7 is an American criminal, convicted mass murderer, and former cult leader who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s." See? That is how you write first sentences. How boring would it be if it simply said "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox, November 12, 1934):136–7 is an American murderer." You kidding me? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone who espouses white supremacist views is a white supremacist. You're just playing with brevity. What you are proposing sounds like editorializing and constitutes a slightly more subtle and vaguer way of distancing him from the manner in which he's most notably described. Given the weight of consensus and the number of times we have had to restate or reinforce it, I propose we write an FAQ for this page (and other's like it), which might save editors time when the next person comes along and starts an RfC or goes running to whatever notice board to re-air this dead horse. Edaham (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Edaham. The encyclopedic, neutral approach is to call a spade a spade. Anything else is obfuscation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If Spencer or his "associates" aren't happy with the label, let him win a defamation suit against Newsweek, CNN, et al. Until then, he's a white supremacist.Scaleshombre (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No skin off my nose. I do suggest a FAQ to make sure no other editors suggest language improvements that bring the introductory sentence in line with other articles. I also hope you good chaps make every other Misplaced Pages article begin with a single declarative sentence. That would spread the joy. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean like "Charles Milles Manson is an American criminal"? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Or "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registered sex offender in the United States?" Sorry, but there is no dark overseer of Misplaced Pages who makes sure everything is 100% consistent. I nominate...you, o snarky one! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but this is just silly and a waste of time. I think every section that starts with "Snopes is a far-left website that promotes blah blah" should be removed immediately per WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks. I'm glad you approve. I've never written one before and think it would have to be based on consensus. So far the two of us are in favor. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on the matter though. Edaham (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think it's worth it NOT to have an FAQ. I AGF with most editors, but on the off chance that an actual Spencer minion comes here looking to -- ahem -- whitewash their bro, let them waste as many hours possible reading the archives and/or tripping all over themselves as they get tangled up in the minutiae of WP policy. Better they expend their energies here than on the street. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a bit of irony now and then, but Misplaced Pages was not designed as bait to lure misguided youths away from socially detrimental activities. Edaham (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree. But if they happen to wander over by themselves every so often, nothing wrong with watching them bang their heads against the walls for a bit. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Christian

@DrFleischman: You have reverted my edit under the pretext of "unclear if speaker was referring to *that* kind of cultural Christian". I ask you to return the wiki link back. As you can notice in the interview, Spencer then explains to Martin what he means by calling himself a "cultural Christian" (8:40):

Martin: What is a "cultural Christian"?
Spencer: I grew up in a Christian background, I resonate with Christianity and so on.

It clearly corresponds with the definition in Cultural Christian: "cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up."--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Declined, but if the consensus overrules me then I'm fine with that. While I'm not a hardliner on MOS:LWQ, I think it's a bad idea when we're quoting a living person talking about their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Conservatism in the US" navbox

I removed the "Conservatism in the United States" template from the bottom of the article. Editor Rockypedia restored it, writing in the edit summary "there's approx. a thousand articles that describe Spencer's political stance as conservative." Most of the RS I've seen talk about Spencer's estrangement from mainstream conservatism, including his being booted from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year, and his firing from The American Conservative magazine because his views were too extreme. He may have started out as a mainstream conservative, but he's "evolved" into something very different. I think it's undue to keep the navbox on his page, and would like to get feedback on removing it. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that if there was a category "Mainstream Conservatism in the United States", then Spencer would not belong in it, per the arguments that Scaleshombre has made. However outside of mainstream conservatism they are, though, Spencer's views are definitely on one side of the political spectrum, and that's the conservative side. Rockypedia (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not exactly. There are terms that describe Spencer's views more accurately -- alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, etc. Lumping him in as a conservative is undue. The article talks about his conservative roots, which is clearly appropriate and backed by RS. Including the Conservatism template, however, suggests that he's currently a significant figure in conservative politics, which is not supported by RS. It's like calling Mussolini a socialist, or Ronald Reagan a Democrat; it was true at earlier points in their careers, but it wasn't those affiliations that made them notable (or notorious, in Mussolini's case). We need to remove the template. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and think those analogies are not accurate. However, I'm more than willing to go with consensus on this; if it turns out that a majority of other editors agree with you, then fine. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the page's history, and I noticed that the template was first added a few weeks ago without consensus. It really should have been discussed first. Also, I'm sure it's not your intent, but the template indirectly legitimizes Spencer's views by connecting them to mainstream conservatism. If there was an encyclopedic reason to do so (i.e., RS/due weight), then I'd have no problem with it. But that's not the case here. Why should we help him when we don't have to? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, could you list some of the articles you referred to? If RS validate your claim, I'd be more inclined to drop the issue. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

well, I found a handful, but I have to admit they're few and far between, and most, while decent sources, don't rise to the level of, say, New York Times reliability. Truth be told, I found more sources that describe how he's taken to calling conservatives "fags" and "flabby" on Twitter.

and does not approve of fellow conservative Richard Spencer, a 38-year-old controversial white nationalist who coined the term "alt-right" in 2010

Richard Spencer, another conservative speaker... drew protests in December

Two examples, but pretty thin. I've changed my opinion and I don't have a problem with the category being removed. Rockypedia (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took another look at the sources, as well as your openness to revising your initial assessment accordingly. Thank you. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Muhrarday (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

See response to the other request made below. SparklingPessimist 06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Apologies, i forgot to mention what i would replace it to, which would be I think another sentence should be added below saying

"In October of 2014, Richard Spencer made the statement on his twitter: "Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It's not going away, not something to get worked up about.

using this tweet https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/528395974666764288?lang=en as a source. " Muhrarday (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Muhrarday: which sentence do you want replaced and could you provide a reliable source for the change? SparklingPessimist 06:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done For now. Please provide a reliable source for the change and specify which sentence you would like changed. SparklingPessimist 06:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Final Observations From a Self-Described Neutral Observer

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Massachusetts articles
• Unknown-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• Start-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Montana articles
• Low-importance Montana articles
• WikiProject Montana articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles