| Revision as of 05:55, 3 December 2016 editRockypedia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,711 edits →"promoting" white supremacist words← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 13 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,791 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 7) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=Start|listas=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=low|MA=yes|Texas=yes|Texas-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Spencer, Richard B.|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Montana|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Montana|importance=low}} |
|
| blp=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|MA=yes|MA-importance=low|Texas=yes|Texas-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = talk page |
|
|
| title = Are Jews White and Is Richard Spencer a White Supremacist? Misplaced Pages Debates |
|
|
| author = Omer Benjakob |
|
|
| org = '']'' |
|
|
| url = http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.811289 |
|
|
| date = September 8, 2017 |
|
|
| accessdate = September 9, 2017 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|1RR=yes|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|blp|1RR=yes|style=brief}} |
|
|
{{Archive basics |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{reqphoto|people of Montana}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
== ] or ]? == |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(61d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{strike|I think it should be included in the lead that he is a ], not just ], which is often used a dysphemism, but the sources we are using identifies him as so. He is also identified as a ] only. ] (]) 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
|
| list = |
|
:White nationalist is what white supremacists call themselves.] · ] 01:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 26 January 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 1|Proposed move: Richard Spencer (white supremacist)}} |
|
::: So does that mean that Black Nationalist (BLM) are "black supremacists"? Having an interest in the welfare of one's own race is not a racist ideology. White people exist; white people have similar concerns as any group concerning jobs, health, education and their children. Why does that seem to automatically reduce down to "white supremacy"? Nothing but reverse racism is what this is. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 26 October 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 26 October 2017}} |
|
::{{strike|Misplaced Pages differentiates between the two, so that's WP:POV from you. Just no. ] (]) 02:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
|
* MRV, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''Endorsed''', 3 November 2017, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer, '''No consensus''', 2 November 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 2 November 2017}} |
|
*SPLC dscribes him as white nationalist and white separatist. And mentions white supremacy twice.] · ] 03:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (activist), '''Not moved''', 28 November 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 28 November 2017}} |
|
*{{ec}}They are different in principle, but in practice the difference is barely acknowledged by most sources. The article says he's president of a white nationalist think tank, so the connection is made perfectly clear in the lede. Over-emphasizing this difference is pointless and non-neutral, and as ] points out, white nationalists avoid the word supremacy because of its negative connotations. While it's preposterous to pretend that "white nationalist" doesn't have the same negative connotations, it doesn't matter because Misplaced Pages doesn't use ]s. Also, white supremacists are described by Misplaced Pages as a subset of white nationalists, so what's the problem with the current wording? How many layers of redundancy do we really need here? ] (]) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 8 December 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 5|Requested move 8 December 2017}} |
|
::Agree with Grayfell on this point. Many reliable sources describe him as a white supremacist. As a result, that's the more accurate description, as it's a subset of white nationalist. ] (]) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::{{strike|Sources didn't mean that he's a ] in the sense of him adhering to a subset, the sources meant he's a white supremacist in the POV way. ] (]) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
::::{{ping|Connor Machiavelli}}, what does "in a pov way" mean? I am never clear what you mean by that and I don't think you are. I'd also like to know when you think it's acceptable to use the term "white supremacist" as you rarely if ever agree to using it. Note please that I'd appreciate answers to both questions. ] ] 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{strike|I mean sources define him in different ways. According to Misplaced Pages, I don't think he's a ] of ], prove he adds ideas from ] and ] to his ideology, then. Also WP:UNDUE. ] (]) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
::::::I have no idea what you mean. What does "According to Misplaced Pages" mean? I don't understand any of the rest either. Why would I prove anything? What do social Darwinism and Nazism have to do with this? Nor do I understand why at ] you want to keep in material sourced only to one poor source, while here you think ] can be applied to something with 3 sources. 4 soon I think, checking another one. ] ] 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{strike|It already says he's a ], so why different wording? "White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups within white nationalism. The former seek a separate white state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to their ideology." from ] on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
::::::::Your reasoning is original research. We go by what reliable sources say, and we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source. ] ] 21:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{strike|Nope, Misplaced Pages has the source right here, http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2003/04/interviews-offer-unprecedented-look-into-the-world-and-words-of-the-new-white-nationalism-60031/ ] (]) 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)}}{{small|Connor Machiavelli has been blocked for ].}} |
|
|
::::::::::No mention of Spencer there. ] ] 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I'd like to suggest that we've reached consensus on this topic, based on the fact that multiple editors have agreed that the current terminology is the most accurate one, ] and ] have articulated why the current terminology is the most accurate, and the only reason this is still going on is that the only editor still arguing for a change to "white nationalist" is ], and every argument presented by him has been refuted point by point. At this point we're just stretching this argument out beyond common sense, and it's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::: Well, you must justify the "White Supremacist" label, if anything. And White Supremacist someone advocating that Whites must rule Blacks ad perpetuum. Is Richards Spencer advocating for this? Please quote him on that. --] (]) 00:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:BLP == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." ] Spencer does not accept the label "white supremacist". If the subject finds the distinction important, there is a hurdle to clear. And I'm not listening to a 20 minute Maddow monoologue. (]) 03:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: The NYtimes link describes him as chairman of a white nationalist think tank. ] (]) 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean the one titled ""? There is no reason to confine out interpretation of sources to the first sentence found by typing ctr+f. The substance of the article is clear. |
|
|
::Not liking a source doesn't make something poorly sourced. Video sources are a hassle but if you're not willing to listen to them, then it's hard to take your complaints seriously. He is known for promoting white supremacist views regardless of what he calls himself. The distinction between white supremacist and white nationalist is mostly a ] word game anyway, and most sources use them interchangeably.(yes, Buzzfeed can be a reliable source) etc. ] (]) 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Spencer's *public* position is that he is not a "white supremacist", though those terms are commonly conflated with "white nationsalist" and "white separatist". His denial *must* be in the article, and a rebuttal given from a RS that has considered the difference and said, yeah, he is. BLP requires that contestable material be removed until consensus is reached. ] (]) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So find a source where he claims he's not a white supremacist and use that to add a rebuttal, if you really must. You merely saying that he doesn't admit something about himself isn't justification for ignoring multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: The Time article quotes his denial is already in the article. Can you at least give a time stamp for the Rachel Maddow video? ] (]) 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's around 2:30, where she calls him "sort of America's foremost white supremacist" among other things. If you already have a source, use it. Edit warring isn't going to work, and removing reliable sources like the Maddow clip without good cause also isn't going to work. ] (]) 03:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: removing BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr There are a number of in depth profiles, interviews from RSs of Spencer. They mostly tend to note his denial of the supremacist label, talk about his views, note that he hangs out with open white supremacists like KKKers (note part of the definition given in the wikipedia article for white supremacists is wanting to rule over non-whites, which Spencer publicly claims not to), and then let the reader make up their own mind. An unscriptedn designation by Rachel Maddow is not RS. ] (]) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yes, it is a reliable source. Just saying it's not a reliable source doesn't make it true. Unflattering things, even offensive things, are not automatically BLP violations if they are true according to reliable sources. Basing this on ''part'' of one definition of the term is either shifting the goalposts or missing the point. Sources are saying he's a white supremacist. You are free to add sources explaining his position, and that should probably be done either way, but that's not a valid reason for removing multiple reliable sources to the contrary, of which Maddow is only one example. ] (]) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*Coming from BLPN. It is not in keeping with NPOV to describe someone in the lead solely according to their own self-identification when there are reliable sources that give a different characterisation. It's fine to indicate what his own preferred term is, but it isn't okay to give ''only'' that term -- that's the NPOV problem in a nutshell. ] (]) 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: *The sources you reverted were wonkette.com link, a slate article that did not explicitly call spencer a supremacist and an unscripted rachel maddow clip. to override spencer's denial there needs to be RSs. Also, ]. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, him espousing white supremacist ideas is what he is notable for. If he wasn't a white supremacist, we wouldn't have an article on him.] (]) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I added three more sources on this. It's not like they're hard to find. It's what he's known for.] (]) 14:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''"The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute ..."''. Can we stop being ridiculous now? ] (]) 14:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
* ''"Better Know an RNC White Supremacist: Richard Spencer"'' - the dude is standing there holding up a sign which says "wanna talk to a racist?" ffs.] (]) 14:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And on this whole "white nationalist" vs "white supremacist" crap. As Maunus says above "white nationalist" is what white supremacists call themselves. And as one of the sources I added says "white nationalism is the suit and tie version of white supremacism".] (]) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No ]. If it doesn't say directly that he is a White Supremacist, then it does not go in the article. ] (]) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:But it DOES fucking say he is a White Supremacist! A bunch of them do! Are you really going to sit there and deny an obvious, easily checked, fact with a straight face??? ] (]) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With the exception of SPLC (which has its own issues with POV-pushing), what other source labels him a White Supremacist that isn't also a tabloid like Wonkette? You self-admitted that the headlines alone are good enough for you, disregarding the content. ] (]) 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Uhhh.... New York Times. Slate. LaCrosse Tribune. LA Times implicitly. Like I said, you're sitting there and trying to deny something which is very easily checked.] (]) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Show me the exact passages from each of these sources that says he is a 'White Supremacist' because upon further inspection of all sources provided so far, not once does Spencer identify as a 'White Supremacist' nor is he identified as one by the newspapers in question; For example, nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist. |
|
|
|
|
|
Try again. Bring some meat to the table. ] (]) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I. Already. Did. Two quotes right above. Here, again |
|
|
:''The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, '''a white supremacist''' whose National Policy Institute'' |
|
|
: ''"'''White Supremacist''': Richard Spencer"' |
|
|
:Other sources do the same. |
|
|
:Now quit wasting my fucking time by asking questions which have already been answered. It's impossible to believe you're acting in good faith here.] (]) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Solntsa90: ''"nowhere in the NYT article you mentioned do they explicitly say that Spencer is a White Supremacist."''. New York Times: ''"''The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, '''a white supremacist''' whose National Policy Institute''"''. And this was pointed out already. I mean, what the hey?!?! ] (]) 15:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't link to the story, because it wasn't a story at all: '''You didn't want anyone to know that it was an opinion editorial''': |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/'''opinion'''/donald-trumps-alt-right-brain.html |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said: Bring some meat to the table, not tabloids, not opinion pieces, and THEN we'll talk. ] (]) 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:For a description of a person, who's known for white supremacism, this is perfectly fine. There are also other non-opinion sources that I provided which you are ignoring . ''"White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites"'' - an article about Spencer. . We can keep going through all of them but it's really a waste of time, since you don't appear ].] (]) 16:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Again, '']'' and the ] are not tabloids and the articles published therein are not opinion pieces. There are no sources cited which say he is ''not'' a white supremacist, so there is no apparent dispute in reliable sources regarding his adherence to white supremacy. ] (]) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:And I would add that this is because there is absolutely no sense in which mainstream reliable sources recognize any significant difference between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy." It is a distinction without a difference, no matter how much racist groups want to attempt to create one. ] (]) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''"The New York Times and the Associated Press are not Tabloids...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Right, but the articles linked were opinion pieces. |
|
|
|
|
|
''There are no sources cited which say he is not a white supremacist'' |
|
|
|
|
|
There are no sources that say you're not really a robot or axe murderer, either. Should we assume that you are one based on sources lack of sources that deny it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of evidence does not imply that someone is part of a group or ideology. Furthermore, none of those sources listed above explicitly call Spencer a 'White Supremacist'; at the most, it is inferred but never explicitly said, which isn't enough to call him a White Supremacist, and would greatly violate BLP. Famiarlise yourself with the rules: ] ] (]) 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"It's a distinction without a differene"'' Then why do you continue to POV-push for 'Supremacist', if it means the exact same thing as 'Nationalist'? ] (]) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== To avoid BLP, a friendly reminder that opinion pieces, tabloids and editorials are not valid sources on Richard B Spencer being a White 'Supremacist' == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a reminder. Any source that gets posted that refers to him as a "White Supremacist", I will personally review to make sure that the source isn't an opinion piece or tabloid, and if it isn't, that it actually explicitly states that Spencer is a "White Supremacist". |
|
|
|
|
|
So far, no such sources have passed this scrutiny, from what I can tell. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is a notable opinion held by many notable people that he is, and as such the opinion bviously needs to be included per WP:NPOV.] · ] 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
New York Times isn't a tabloid. First you were denying that the sources existed. Then you were denying that the sources say what they actually say (despite the fact that the sources were quoted to you three or four times). Now you are pretending that the sources are "tabloids" or editorials. They're not. Seriously, cut this shit out. ] (]) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Neither the NYT nor the AP are opinion pieces, and they clearly describe him as a white supremacist. There is no BLP issue here; the sources are impeccable. At best you're arguing ], but I would suggest that NYT and AP are pretty much gold-standard sourcing. (Came here from BLPN). ] (]) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: |
|
|
: |
|
|
: |
|
|
: |
|
|
: |
|
|
:Etc etc etc.] (]) 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I clicked on a link at random, which turned out to be this one: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37433759 |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's easy to make the distinction between what news media outlets refer to him as and what his own website/articles and words refer to his beliefs as. To say Richard Spencer openly promotes "white supremacist" views is a misconception, when there are ACTUAL people who do promote those views. ] 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages content is based upon reliable sources, and reliable sources describe him as what he is. ] (]) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes. And that's included. ] 17:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Your rationale is not very clear here - there are lots of RS that support calling him a white supremacist, where are the (reliable, secondary) sources that support the description you added? Remember we are basically dealing with FRINGE material here, there's no way we should be giving his self-description (or your personal, apparently WP:OR assessment of his views) more prominence than high quality sources like the NYT. See WP:WEIGHT. ] (]) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::For the twenty-billionth time, nobody is denying that lots of RS call him a white supremacist and nobody is removing them. It's included on the second friggin' sentence. What sources DO make clear is that he DOES NOT ESPOUSE 'WHITE SUPREMACIST" views. He's denied it on literally every single interview. There are people who DO espouse "white supremacist" views and admit it on interview. Also, tons of RS list Spencer's views as "identiarians," because he's pan-European, which is NOT PART of the ideology "White Supremacism" (Go , , tons of sources to back this up). Just because you don't understand the difference between the two movements (or think there isn't one) doesn't mean you can change it on here. ] 05:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Neither of those sources are remotely reliable. We know the purported difference between these niche racist ideologies, but as an encyclopedia article, this needs to be a clear reflection on the consensus. Reliable, neutral sources emphasize that he's known for promoting white supremacist views, regardless of whether or not he is a self-professed white supremacist. ] (]) 05:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::We describe people as reliable sources describe them, even if they personally disagree with those reliably-sourced descriptions. As our article states, he is primarily publicly known for promoting what a wide array of impeccable reliable sources describe as white supremacist views. We note that he disagrees with that description, but his disagreement does not trump the AP, NYT and other ]. Moreover, your attempt to describe a link to Radix (a notorious white supremacist blog) as a "reliable source" aptly demonstrates why consensus here is clearly against you. ] (]) 05:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: Well said (by both of you) - Bulldog, there is a pretty firm consensus against your edits here, you really shouldn't still be trying to . ] (]) 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I agree with the above 3 users. Sources need to be reflected. ] ] 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::"White Supremacism" is not interchangeable with "White Nationalism" or "Identitarianism." They each have different ideologies, whether you want to "believe" that or not. This is easily sourcable. Sorry, but "consensus" from a bunch of "non-experts" on a wiki is irrelevant when every article, every interview you can find Spencer explicitly describes that he is promoting views that don't align with the ideology detailed in the ] article. If you want compromise, reword the sentence to reflect what is being "promoted" by the person versus what is being "said" about him. Two different things. ] 07:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Misplaced Pages is based upon reliable sources. Your ''disagreement'' with those sources is irrelevant. This isn't a matter of "compromise," reliable sources say he's promoting white supremacism and that's the bottom line here. I suggest you self-revert your edit before you're blocked for violation of the ]. ] (]) 07:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
...And nowhere does it even mention the word 'supremacist', let alone the phrase 'White Supremacist'. You're not being a very honest editor here, really trying hard to POV-push. '''You're just posting links, hoping no one will actually read or scrutinise them.''' ] (]) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clicking on another link at random takes me to 'The Rachel Maddow Show'. I don't think you understand what constitutes a impartial source, and suggest you familiarise yourself with ]. ] (]) 16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the sourcing could be cleaned up. Reviewing the discussed sources, the only one that reliably and expressly calls Spencer a white supremacist is the AP story. The others should be removed per ] and ]. The New York Times story comes tantalizingly close but doesn't quite make it there, in my view. (Neither of these are opinion sources, btw.) <small>(I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.)</small> --] (]) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*According to current version, he ''is an American writer, publisher, and self-described ] known for promoting ] views''. That is exactly what these sources tell. Looks good to me. ] (]) 18:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what the sources tell, if you just heard what ] said, only one source reliably calls him a White Supremacist, and one single source (even if from AP) may not be enough to force a label onto someone, especially when that person denies said-label (though that is something I'm unclear of, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify how many sources you need to make a label stick). ] (]) 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Version by VM and others does not tell that "he is a white supremacist" (as the title of this section wrongly suggests). It tells he is a ''writer'' known for promoting white supremacist views, and that is exactly what all these sources imply. ] (]) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Keyword: 'Imply'. ] (]) 18:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::*My suggested phrasing (given agreement on cites) is "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist , a claim Spencer denies." This is because, if the subject of a BLP repeatedly publicly claims not to believe in <whatever> the lede of the article should not say he does believe in <whatever> without explicitly (as opposed to implicitly as current wording) noting his denial. And wikipedia maintains six separate articles for white nationalism, separatism, supremacism and black nationalism, separatism, supremacists. If RSs really do agree that the two concepts "white nationalism vs supremacism" is a distinction without a difference, I invite them to propose a {{merge }. ] (]) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To follow up on my previous comment, as I was pinged back: We cannot state what a reliable source only implies, per our policy on ], which says: ''"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not '''explicitly''' stated by any of the sources."'' (Emphasis mine.) The AP source is reliable and calls Spencer a white supremacist. Therefore we can say he's a white supremacist. I am comfortable with the current wording. We just need to remove the references that don't verify the content (and weaken the article by causing some readers to question our neutrality). --] (]) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From : "The term was coined in 2008 by '''Richard Spencer, a white supremacist''' whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world." (emphasis added). How many sources do we need, exactly? Is it 6? 7? 200? ] (]) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Opinion piece. Not reliable for this purpose. --] (]) 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The headline of at ]: "Roland Martin Clashes With '''White Supremacist''' Over White Angst, Donald Trump". It's an article about Martin's one-on-one with Spencer. Do you think ] is an unreliable source? ] (]) 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I generally take the position that headlines aren't reliable, but the body of the article says Spencer supports white supremacist views, and that's good enough for me. However I'm stumped about reputation of News One / Radio One / Interactive One for accuracy. They do seem like a large and serious news outlet, yet I haven't been able to find anything about their editorial staff. --] (]) 21:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
], founded in 1841, and the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world, describes Spencer : "The Alt-Right - the term was first coined by '''white supremacist Richard Spencer'''". Honestly, I think the original lead skated around the issue by only saying "known for promoting white supremacist views" - there appear to be plenty of reliable sources straight-up describing him as a white supremacist, so the lead should just say that. ] (]) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From a about Milo Yiannopoulos: "Richard Spencer, a smartly dressed, University of Virginia-educated '''white supremacist'''". I've lost count now of the reliable sources describing Spencer as a white supremacist. ] (]) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::These last two seem like good sources to me. --] (]) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Thank you. I'll take all of those comments under advisement, and I suppose I'll add those last two if this white-washing nonsense of removing "white supremacist" from Spencer's page continues. ] (]) 14:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I'll just note that Solntsa90 is the only editor (I think) claiming that WSup shouldn't be in the lead, my preferred phrasing (as I noted above) would be "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and white nationalist "identitarian" who has often been described as a white supremacist , a claim Spencer denies." I'd be fine with straight up calling him a "WNal, Id and Wsup" as long as we note his denial of Wsup. ] (]) 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: This is almost okay except for the word "claim" - ] details synonyms for "said" that should be avoided, and for good reason. It appears to lessen the legitimacy of the first part of the sentence, and really, the part that's less relevant on Misplaced Pages is what Spencer calls himself. The way he's described in secondary sources is what counts. I don't mind a sentence detailing that Spencer states that he is not a white supremacist, and instead self-identifies as an "identitarian" - which is pretty much where the lead was before all this nonsense started, and why I oppose the changes that have been attempted. ] (]) 04:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: How about "who has often been described as a white supremacist, though Spencer rejects this description." That neatly includes Spencer's denial while giving prominence to the mainstream viewpoint. ] (]) 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I'd go with this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views. Spencer rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian." |
|
|
:::::: I feel that splitting it into two sentences is important - reliable secondary sources are the key, and what a person describes themselves as (a primary source) should not be given equal weight. ] (]) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I'm good with Rockypedia's formulation. ] (]) 20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sounds reasonable.] · ] 07:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opinion pieces are reliable sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --] (]) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is there something specific you're referring to? ] (]) 04:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Conflicted == |
|
|
I wanted to bring up an issue I am having with this page. Since seeing ''The Atlantic'' piece with the excerpted video of the 2016 convention, I wanted to find out more about Spencer. To be very upfront, I do not support his views. I noticed that his Misplaced Pages page could use a bit of TLC in terms of citations (my specialty), so I spent a bunch of time working on the citations with the intention of doing further reading on Spencer. I wanted to gather information for my own personal understanding, and have found that often fixing up Misplaced Pages pages, this is a mechanism that allows me to research subjects and people.<br/> |
|
|
After doing this work: I am very conflicted about the end-result of the improved condition of his page as result of my efforts. On one hand, I very seriously don't want to help this man and his organizations. On the other hand, I wanted the data about Spencer to be very clear in terms of linking to a wide variety of sources, both pro and anti his efforts, to illustrate his work -- so others could easily find this data and parse it on their own. So I hope that this has been done with the spirit of Misplaced Pages #Neutrality in mind. But I remain conflicted, because I don't exactly feel great about learning what I have learned, and again, I don't want to support someone who preaches concepts I object to so fundamentally. I wonder if other editors have any thoughts and/or constructive ideas on this issue. -- ] (]) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have no sympathies for Spencer either, but I think you should feel reassured that there's nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to writing objectively and truthfully about even your fiercest ideological enemies or people who are exceedingly far from your own values - especially on a popular source of public information like Misplaced Pages. If people can't even address their opponents' arguments and ideals correctly, then real discussion has been lost. ] (]) 11:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Richard B. Spencer|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please change: |
|
|
|
|
|
„He spent the summer of 2005 and 2006 at the Institute Vienna Circle.“ |
|
|
|
|
|
to |
|
|
|
|
|
„He attended the Vienna International Summer University in July 2005 and in July 2006“ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Spencer has changed his views == |
|
https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/VISU_2001_bis_2016.pdf |
|
|
https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He says - rather convincingly in my view - that he is no longer a white nationalist and no longer associates with neo-Nazis, alt -right, etc. While of course we should not remove his scurrilous past of Nazi rhetoric, etc, I think per WP:BLP we should clarify in the opening paragraph that he has changed his views, or at least claims to have, rather than simply presenting him as a "neo-nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist." ] (]) 03:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:So? (see ]). ] (]) 12:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{notdone}} That removes information about when in the years he was at the university, which does not seem like an improvement. ]] 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== What is the source for "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist?"== |
|
The new wording exactly specifies when in the years he attended the Summer School in Vienna. Richard Spencer never spent any time “at the Institute Vienna Circle“. This is important. The institute‘s director Prof. Stadler has clarified this on the Institute‘s website: https://www.univie.ac.at/ivc/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}} This doesn't seem like a contested point. ] (]) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
I cannot find any source for this. ] (]) 03:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: for starters ] ] 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Removing public records per BLPPRIMARY == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ukraine/Russia == |
|
I have two sources from this article; they add nothing to the article's content and link to purported personally-identifying information such as birthdate and parents for a decidedly non-public figure, namely the article subject's father. I don't see any reason to make it easy to find Richard Spencer's father's alleged parents' names. ] (]) 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree. There is also no reason to include the father's full name and the associated link. It's not encyclopedic, it's OR, there's NWP:NPF also. The Mother Jones profile mentions the father's profession and it's encyclopedic as it illustrates RBS's uppermiddle class background. ] (]) 07:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it is only possible under very rare circumstances to use tweet citations to demonstrate the views of an individual due to Misplaced Pages policy on self-published sources (a policy that I´m not sure I entirely agree with, nevertheless it is still policy), anyways, the point being in relation to Russia/Ukraine that the tweet that demonstrated Spencer´s newfound support for NATO and Ukraine was taken off the section on his geopolitical views, which is fine in one regard that it complies with Misplaced Pages policy but it should be strongly emphasized that Spencer is no longer a supporter of Russia as anyone would believe from simply reading the article, so we should find a source to change this. ] (]) 08:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
=="promoting" white supremacist words== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think tweet citations '''can''' demonstrate views of an individual. To quote from ]: |
|
Has anyone provided a single link that proves Spencer "promotes" ]? Every single source on the article states he promotes ], ] and ]. Can't find a single one that says he promotes the ideology of ], which is not equivalent to the prior three. Until that's done, I'm removing the word "promoting" from the first sentence and will continue to do so. ] 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:¨Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''' ...¨ . |
|
:Again? Do we really need yet another section on this? Presenting this one specific issue as an entirely new problem is a tissue-thin waste of time. The substance of the many cited articles, and many more besides, is that he is a proponent of white supremacism. Sources have only gotten clearer on this in recent weeks. The Washington Post agrees, the NYT agrees, , the SPLC agrees, the ADL agrees, the agrees, . These are not presenting this as a subjective opinion, they are stating it as a fact. This "some media outlets" nonsense undermines the consensus of reliable sources to advance a fringe perspective. The only reliable source saying he isn't a white supremacist is Spencer himself, and sources explicitly that he is reliable in making this overly-fussy distinction. This horse is dead. ] (]) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. Follow the sources.] · ] 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
:] (]) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::However it also may not be true, so what did the edit say? ] (]) 13:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm glad Maunus agrees that we should follow the sources, so I expect him to rephrase the first sentence to do so. Yes, again because you people still don't seem to understand what the word "promote" means. I'll help: |
|
|
|
:::Not sure what you mean by 'what did the edit say'; please clarify? |
|
|
:::Do you mean if Spencer is lying about his own views? If he is verifiably the account holder, his earnestness in proclaiming this is not something we should litigate |
|
|
:::] (]) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He may well be, people do it all the time (In fact he has been accused (has he not) of not being honest about his politics?), what I meant is what I said, what did (or will) the edit say? ] (]) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::And "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;". ] (]) 13:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Shall I restore the tweets then? ] (]) 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, as it is "unduly self-serving", it is his claim to distance himself from criticism. ] (]) 10:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 == |
|
:::pro·mote |
|
|
:::prəˈmōt/Submit |
|
|
:::verb |
|
|
:::1. |
|
|
:::further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Richard B. Spencer|answered=yes}} |
|
:::Now I've gone through all of Grayfell's sources, and can't find a single one that says "Richard Spencer's goal is to promote White Supremacy." All I see is hundreds of labels, which can and has been including in the article in the form of what it is: "Many media outlets refer to Spencer as a White Supremacist." White supremacy is a distinct ideology in modern America, distinct from ] and ]. They are not the same, even if you'd prefer them to be. Where are the sources that claim he promotes this ideology? ] 23:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
It must also be included that after endorsing joe biden, he also endorsed Kamala Harris. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://nypost.com/2024/11/02/us-news/prominent-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-endorses-kamala-harris/ ] (]) 01:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
We need to just change the lead sentence to "Richard Spencer is an American white nationalist and white supremacist." There's plenty of non-opinion reliable sources for each of those descriptions and this wording would eliminate the word "promoting". Enough of these white-washing attempts to make Spencer more palatable to the masses. If a person doesn't want to be described as a white supremacist, he should stop publicly espousing white supremacist views. ] (]) 05:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
He says - rather convincingly in my view - that he is no longer a white nationalist and no longer associates with neo-Nazis, alt -right, etc. While of course we should not remove his scurrilous past of Nazi rhetoric, etc, I think per WP:BLP we should clarify in the opening paragraph that he has changed his views, or at least claims to have, rather than simply presenting him as a "neo-nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist." NeverEnoughStan (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I know it is only possible under very rare circumstances to use tweet citations to demonstrate the views of an individual due to Misplaced Pages policy on self-published sources (a policy that I´m not sure I entirely agree with, nevertheless it is still policy), anyways, the point being in relation to Russia/Ukraine that the tweet that demonstrated Spencer´s newfound support for NATO and Ukraine was taken off the section on his geopolitical views, which is fine in one regard that it complies with Misplaced Pages policy but it should be strongly emphasized that Spencer is no longer a supporter of Russia as anyone would believe from simply reading the article, so we should find a source to change this. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It must also be included that after endorsing joe biden, he also endorsed Kamala Harris.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)