Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 6 November 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. 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. Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth 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. 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. 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).

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 talk page has been mentioned by a media organization: Omer Benjakob (September 8, 2017). "Are Jews White and Is Richard Spencer a White Supremacist? Misplaced Pages Debates". Haaretz. Retrieved September 9, 2017.

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

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)

"Reliable sources" are most certainly editors' viewpoints. A gedanken is in order: Consider if one of the hallowed RS came to the Wiki and edited articles, directly. Would that not be nearly in violation of the NPOV policies, if not actually? What is certain is that, in all cases of article writing, paticularly related to philosophy, the nature and quality of the source of information is what is judged, and factual information is invariably where a bulk of the value is. Turn the Wiki into an editorial board for all I care. The critical readers already know it is. Do it with facts, though, with a good dictionary by your side, and write well. I'd get behind that.140.254.77.235 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Calling this a gedanken is downright silly. Misplaced Pages deals with this specific occurrence all the time, and this isn't anything remotely new. Many, many published authors contribute to Misplaced Pages. We have multiple Nobel prize winners editing both inside and outside their fields of expertise. These editors are also required to cite reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is, fundamentally, not a publisher of original research. This is a core aspect of encyclopedias, not just Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. There is subjectivity involved in identifying which sources are reliable and which are not, but this is less subjective than relying on self-described experts to figure out the 'facts'. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No doubt it's common, and while the scenario is obviously reasonable to you, it is apparently not to the person to whom I gave my comment. Subjectivity is guaranteed for these types of articles, and most of the content is OR at some point. What is more silly than a gedanken's being called a gedanken, however, is the assertion that a suggestion to adhere to lexical aids to define our words ("supremacist" vs "nationalist") makes me a person who is asserting myself as a "self-described" expert. I merely reach for my lexicon. It requires no expertise. To ignore it and rely on the extreme depth of one's humble opinion regarding the definitions of words is to advertise one's expertise. Also, you should read old encyclopedias. Many articles had single authors who were regarded as experts in those subjects, often because of their original research. There's no reason to fear OR. It's the unscholarly OR we don't want, which this article reflects in several respects.140.254.77.235 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the person you are replying to are presumptuous, and also incorrect about Misplaced Pages's core approach. Misplaced Pages:No original research doesn't have the kind of qualifiers you're describing. The distinction between "scholarly" and "unscholarly" OR is subjective. Since it's opposed to Misplaced Pages's philosophy, using that here, in this article, would be treating this article as an exception. This would be substantially more subjective than using reliable sources.

There are also other problems with your comments, such as the extremely close overlap between 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacism' as defined by academics in their full context. Breaking down terms into their component words and then using a dictionary to define those individual words devoid of context is simplistic and unhelpful. Since these and other related points have already been discussed to death on this and other talk pages, this really doesn't need to be discussed again, however. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 8 September 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)

Unfortunately, many people have tried to point this out. There appears to be a small group of partisan people who have an inexplicable ax to grind. People on the left will already know this information from DNC talking points. Everyone else will see that it is partisan and stop reading after the first sentence. I don't know if they just simply don't understand the question or if they assume just by asking it that we are Spencer Supporters and therefore racist and therefore not worthy of an honest answer. My only guess is that maybe they hope that Richard Spencer will stumble on it and become convicted and change his ways! I would encourage you to look at the archive links on the talk pages. The debates will reveal a lot of useful information on Spencer but a lot of useful information on how intellectual bubbles are formed and reinforced and perceived as "truth." But, as the gate-keepers pointed out, you are not going to change their mind. S2pid80it (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You've spent a month posting on this talk page repeating Spencer's own right-wing talking points on how victimized he is and trying to make his article more flattering to Spencer's preferred terminology. If it's important to you for people not to think you're a "Spencer Supporter", this was a mistake.

As for the idea that these changes would invite more people to read the entire article, that's not even remotely close to Misplaced Pages's goals, nor would that be a valid tactic if it were. The goal is to summarize his notability according to reliable sources. These sources overwhelmingly emphasize his extremism and racism, even if the specific language may differ slightly. If we start downplaying this in the lede in order to make the article more friendly for people who... believe that only leftists hate white supremacy? This sure sounds like political correctness to me. If accuracy is the goal, he is a white supremacist. In this case, simple language is the most neutral way to handle this. All of those many discussions in the archive you've read support this. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@S2pid80it:, one more time just for luck: if you want to change the cited words in the lede while satisfying due weight, and RS you have these options 1) (this is the most 100% certain way) go to lots of reliable sources and get them to say something else about him - you might have to get the subject of the article to visit a few orphanages first. 2)go to the talk page of manual of style or npov etc and propose that those pages include "white supremacist" among the "words to watch" section, with some kind of guideline evectively limiting or curtailing the use of the word (inspite of the fact it's used everywhere). There's no partisan/liberal/leftist sneaky thing going on. There's a group of people who think we should use what ever words we find in a preponderance of sources based on wp:due and another group of people who think that certain words are so nasty that they contravene wp:blp guidelines and shouldn't be used as they are too value-laden. People in either of these two groups who state policy as their basis for altering the article will have their comments taken seriously by people like closing admins or uninvolved editors who contribute to RfCs. Anyone who even thinks that this is a political discussion is almost certainly approaching the debate from some kind of political standpoint, which is misaligned with Misplaced Pages's objectives. There aren't any 'gate keepers' in this debate. Essentially the argument boils down to a perceived conflict between our policies on RS and censorship and our strong policies protecting biographies of living persons. Anyone who brought either their politics or accusations of partisanship to this debate can go....wp:civil....up a tree. Edaham (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer has repeatedly opened his mouth and publicly demonstrated that he holds white supremacist and anti-Semitic viewpoints. Unless he publicly repudiates those views at any point, Misplaced Pages will continue to define Spencer just as he has defined himself: a notable white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth should one have to find articles and "get them to call him" an activist who supports white nationalist and white supremacist views just to have the VERY BEGINNING of the article changed to not start out as "he's a white supremacist". As stated, this creates a very biased first impression to the article, shifting its image from one that's describing him to one that's labeling a still-living individual. Starting the article by describing him as an activist who supports white nationalist and white supremacist views doesn't actually alter what he is, it merely better specifies what he is while coming across as a little bit less biased. He's described several times within the article as an activist, and it seems that this is the most descriptive term for him. He's an activist who supports white nationalist ideals including some white supremacist ones.

White nationalism is an ideology subject to significant activism, and white supremacy is a branch of white nationalism. Saying that it's fine to go with "white supremacist" because that's a kind of white nationalist, as someone above said, is as ridiculous as saying it's fine to use the term "gem" instead of "mineral" because a gem is a kind of mineral (usually), completely ignoring the fact that not all minerals are gems or are purely gems. Like that, Spencer apparently is not "purely" a white supremacist, as there are enough aspects he rejects that he finds it inaccurate and rejects the term. Yes, he supports some ideals that may be more aligned with white supremacy than white nationalism, but it's really then a matter of just how much of the ideology a person has to support to be identified as such. And either way, opening up by saying he's something he has apparently denounced seems a little biased compared to stating that he's an individual who is associated with or supports some parts of the groups.

This is not to say that I am a supporter of his by any means. I'm no SJW but I still find his ideology to be absolutely vile. But that doesn't mean I have to disagree with the assessment of this article as appearing biased and lacking in the impartiality expected of an encyclopedia, especially when discussing a living person.98.197.193.213 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Most reliable sources call him a white supremacist, not an activist. Our neutrality policy basically says we need to fairly represent the reliable sources. It's pretty much that simple. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Editors might also be interested in this CNN article: "Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to Richard Spencer a white rights activist. We have updated the story to more accurately refer to him as a white supremacist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 19 October 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)

Cultural Christian sounds like a primitive definition for a person who follows Judeo-Christian values. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:32, 17 October 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)

One of two things is happening: Either you're using your own definition of "conserve/consevative," or the definition has changed. Spencer is actually quite liberal, not seeming to desire to conserve the values of the founding populous of the USA. Simply because both of you, perhaps, have become more liberal doesn't mean the other remains on the side on which he started. You'd simply both be liberals to varying degrees.140.254.77.235 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Posting in the middle of an older discussion is poor-form and potentially misrepresents the ongoing discussion. If you want to comment about how reliable sources describe Spencer, include those sources, otherwise let old conversations die a natural death. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 8 September 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)

"refused to denounce Hitler"

this just seems like a personal attack on his character, with a gotcha topic that doesn't belong in the intro or article at all, if anything it could be better wordedWikigirl97 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

following copied from my talk page. These are questions for the article's talk.

Edaham (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikigirl97 Can you elaborate on your "jewish gotcha bs" comment? I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article, but it might help us understand your issues a little better. Right now it seems that editing WP is the least of your problems. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

info on discretionary sanctions can be found here. Pursuant to your other queries, please read wp:v and wp:rs. We are at liberty to populate our articles with as much of what you clearly see as Fagin-esque attack material as we like - provided that it contributes to the subject at hand (which it does as the subject of the article is really only notable for saying this kind of stuff) and is reliably sourced. If someone wants to make a spectacle of themselves by saying lots of stupid stuff to reporters, they are in effect writing their own attack page by shining the light of their diatribe through our lense of impartiality. Lastly, using the word Jew as a racial slur term on my talk page is not OK per wp:civil. If nobody else takes this up in the meantime, I will file a report at wp:ANI the next time I see it happen. Edaham (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikigirl97, you probably ought to attempt to explain yourself here, because the use of a religion as a slur is not acceptable behavior from a Misplaced Pages editor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's no longer possible. (Hopefully the Cornfield has plenty of tiki torches to help her see at night.) Perhaps a moment of silence is in order. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"She" has been CU blocked as a sock of {{user|Fishguy7)). Blamed her computer for the error (literally). But I can assure everyone that it was no error, whoever the person is behind the accounts that comment was just the tip of the iceberg. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well ain't that interesting. I knew she was a sock of someone, based on her editing history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist debate in this talk page makes the news

The debate on this page has recently been featured in a news report about Misplaced Pages titled "Are Jews white and is Richard Spencer a white supremacist? Misplaced Pages debates" and published on the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It seems this is the second such piece to be written for the newspaper (see: "The royal houses of Netanyahu and Baratheon: Inside this week's drama on Hebrew Misplaced Pages") by a writer called Omer Benjakob who claims to be researching Misplaced Pages. --192.118.73.36 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

They should have "sic"'d my "sic". Volunteer Marek  09:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe writing that a news editor at one of the world's great newspapers "claims to be researching Misplaced Pages" is a BLP violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

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

Add descriptor "writer" to lead section, as I don't believe one's ideology, that being white supremacy, counts as an occupation. DanKasich (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)User:DanKasich DanKasich (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please get consensus before requesting changes to the article that can be seen as controversial. SparklingPessimist 04:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification - he isn't notable (per wp:n) for being a writer. He's notable for his positions and ideologies on things, which are noted in the lead. other things are written about him in accordance with wp:due, hence the fact that he's done other stuff is noted after the main reason for which he has achieved the notability required to warrant an article. Edaham (talk) 04:36, 21 September 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)

Yes, we need a reliable third-party source for this. For example if Spencer gives an interview to the Dallas Voice, we can cite that.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It would have to be more than an interview transcript. I believe there's a consensus here that we're avoiding using primary sources to give Spencer a platform for his beliefs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I obviously don't think we should cite non-reliable sources like Radix or his own Twitter account (which was suggested above). But an interview in a reliable source is fine by me. It makes no sense to censor his speech because the majority (myself included) views it as too heterodox/unpalatable. We can either AfD his article, or treat it like any other article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't make ultimatums. Context always matters, so no article is treated like "any other article". Misplaced Pages shouldn't ignore context to provide loopholes for him to spread his garbage around. We must use caution and evaluate his comments on a case by case basis. We would need a sourced reason to include this beyond merely that he said it in an interview one time. This is the same with celebrity gossip if you want a comparison. Just because it can be sourced, that doesn't mean it should be included. Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, any new content needs to be 'due' to be added to the article. I agree with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

His website

Richardbspencer.com is currently a boilerplate placeholder from a domain site. Archive.org shows this happened in mid-August, first through Squarespace, and then Hover. Rather than link to spam or potentially worse, it seems like it's better to remove the link until this resolves. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. - Ryk72 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Views on Socialism

There are numerous reputable sources which discuss his affinity for socialism and his radical left wing views on economics. Could someone please update the article to include them? www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-alt-right-is-not-truly-right/article/2631747 https://libertarianheathen.com/2017/06/26/richard-spencer-i-am-a-socialist-and-i-hate-the-right-wing/ www.pacificpundit.com/.../hey-look-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-is-a-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.147.71.98 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The links you provided are not reliable sources. Please provide a link to at least one source that has an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking Engagements are not relevant?

I don't understand this revert which removed this well-sourced material:

The University of Cincinnati is going to permit him to be speak following a threatened a lawsuit. The president of the University of Cincinnati wrote a letter stating that Spencer has a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Ohio State University was also threatened with a similar lawsuit but refused to let him speak.

References

1. http://local12.com/news/local/uc-decides-to-allow-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-to-speak-on-campus
2. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2017/10/13/uc-president-his-hate-only-makes-our-love-you-stronger/763445001/
3. http://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/20979204/morning-news-uc-officials-mum-on-potential-white-nationalist-speaker-ohio-reps-vote-against-hurricane-relie
4. http://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-state-rejects-richard-spencer-university-cincinnati-will-let-him-speak#stream/0

Numerous other national sources have talked about his speaking engagements at various universities and the potential or actual violence that comes with them:

• Washington Post: "Federal judge stops Auburn from canceling white nationalist Richard Spencer speech. Protests and a scuffle greet him"
• Washington Post: "Lawsuit seeks to force Michigan State to let Richard Spencer speak on campus"

• US News and World Report: Auburn Pays $29,000 to End Suit Over White Nationalist
• Washington Times: White nationalist Richard Spencer plots Berkeley event after Ann Coulter cancels Thursday speech
• Newsweek: AFTER ANN COULTER NIXES BERKELEY SPEECH, WHITE NATIONALIST RICHARD SPENCER VOWS TO VISIT
• WCJB: Richard Spencer to speak at University of Florida

Some of these are already covered. I am unclear why the speaking engagements with similar lawsuits and controversy in Ohio are not relevant.

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor that reverted you made it clear in his summary: "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper." If, after he speaks there, there's significant coverage of the event in reliable sources, maybe there's a reason to add a sentence about the speech. Rockypedia (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the lawsuits are notable as highly unusual, which is why they are covered by several reliable third-party sources. I agree with you that we don't want to turn into this article into an advertising platform for his speaking engagements, but this is different. With those lawsuits, he is setting a precedent for future so-called "hate speakers" on college campuses. Thus, it seems due for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My main point is that we should still wait for an outcome or extended coverage of these lawsuits; otherwise we're still treating Misplaced Pages as a newspaper. Rockypedia (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

With those lawsuits, he is setting a precedent for future so-called "hate speakers" on college campuses. Unless you have a working time machine, you can't actually know that: WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Calton, the editor who deleted the content in question. (This should have been done already...) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• What Rockypedia said. I thought I was being as clear as can be, though perhaps I should have thrown in WP:CRYSTAL to boot: how, exactly, do you know that a FUTURE speaking engagement -- or almost any future event, really -- is actually significant? Short answer: you don't and you can't. If it happens AND it's in some way significant to his biography, go to town. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Granting or denying permission to speak in the future is not a future event--it is a current event. So is the threat of a lawsuit or the filing of a lawsuit. The arrangement to allow white supremacists to speak on university campuses is controversial, which is why it is in the news throughout the country and why there are protests. We do not delete all references to budgets, which detail future spending.

There is now even more substantial coverage on the his plan to speak in Cincinnati:

• Chicago Tribune via AP: University of Cincinnati to allow white nationalist to speak

• Associated Press (through NBC4i: Groups plan protest during University of Cincinnati talk by white nationalist Richard Spencer
• same A.P. story via Fox8
• same A.P. story via 10tv
• another AP story via TalkingPoints

• Miami Herald: University of Cincinnati to allow white nationalist to speak
• Charlotte Observer (same story) listed under National News
• Denver CBS: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/10/14/white-nationalist-university-speak/
• WPCO: White nationalist leader Richard Spencer will be allowed to speak at the University of Cincinnati
• Cleveland.com: University of Cincinnati to allow white supremacist Richard Spencer to speak on campus; Ohio State undecided
• WLWT White supremacist will be allowed to speak at the University of Cincinnati
• DailyMail: White nationalist Richard Spencer gets the go-ahead for a speech at the University of Cincinnati sparking fears of violence (Is this the banned source?)
• The lists goes on an on as the story was widely distributed via the Associated Press (A.P.)

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So what? Dig up has many redistributed wire-service stories as you like, but you haven't even TRIED to address the actual objections. Want to give that a shot? --Calton | Talk 05:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I brought up the "precedent" argument to explain why the lawsuits matter, and why they should be included (besides weight of RS). You are focusing on the events and we are focusing on the lawsuits. The lawsuits are not Crystalball, they are in the here and now, which is why we believe they are due for inclusion. Inside Higher Ed has another interesting article:

• Roll, Nick (October 16, 2017). "Richard Spencer and a Tale of Two Publics". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved October 16, 2017.

Where I probably agree with you is that he is getting too much content in reliable third-party sources for his terrible ideas. (And preventing him from speaking is making things worse, as he was a complete nobody when he was invited on campuses by Youth for Western Civilization in 2010-2011.) But we have to reflect the weight of reliable third-party sources about what's happened and what's happening. Or we could AfD his entire article as undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• ^I agree with a good portion of Zigzig's analysis. As for what must be addressed:

• Reliable Sources: The most important factor that must be considered for any material in Misplaced Pages is the extent to which is it is covered in reliable secondary sources. That's the gold standard for inclusion that every serious Wikipedian should know and follow. The suggestion that having numerous independent sources covering this is not important shocks me.
• WP:NOTNEWS does not say you can't cover current events and, in fact, says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." Adding a few sentences does not unduly bias the article and puts it in due proportion to his other similar speaking events at other universities.
• WP:CRYSTAL This has been explained too. The sentences I proposed do not attempt to predict whether he will speak or whether there will be violence, they simply document the current controversial FACT of being given permission (or not being given permission) to speak, that he threatened a lawsuits, etc.

The included coverage of the MSU lawsuit is hardly different than what I proposed adding. The only difference between MSU and the two Ohio universities is that the lawsuit is already filed. Yet that lawsuit is not settled yet--no one is accusing this unsettled lawsuit of WP:CRYSTAL. I believe some of the significant coverage states that the reason Univ. of Cincinnati (U.C.) caved into the Spencer's demands to speak was because of the threat of a similar lawsuit, which U.C. might lose. The fact that the Auburn event (and the violence associated with it) was is not covered in the article seems odd to me, because there was more coverage of that actual speaking event (Google search) than of the MSU lawsuit (Google search) of a refused event. I do not see any consistency in the standards being used to decide what should or should not be in this article.

In that sense of strange standards, I tend to agree with Zigzig that the subject of this article probably has gained significance almost entirely because the media turned him into a big deal. For better or for worse, we do not control the media; we just reflect what reliable secondary sources say, whether we like their biases, due weight, etc. or not.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have no dog in this fight, but I'll point out that David's original edit started with, "The University of Cincinnati is going to permit him to be speak ...," and was therefore inconsistent with his comments here that we're talking about events that already happened. Perhaps if the proposed content was re-written to focus on events that have already occurred (or are already occurring) then that will address everyone's concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I would never has said "going to let him speak" instead of "permitting him to speak" if I had any idea it would be removed under the claim of WP:CRYSTAL. My choice echoed language found in many of the articles ("to allow"; "will allow"; etc.) Probably the choice of that tense by the author(s) was because the President's letter does not say Spencer unequivocally has permission to speak, giving the administration some leeway to block his speaking in the future. However, anyone who reads the letter, quotes, and articles can see the clear current intention of U.C. that they are presently allowing him and presently not objecting to his future speaking event. Like the threat of a lawsuit (which describes contingent threat of future behavior) this is a current action of expression of particular intention of the University, which contrasts with OSU's position. If either university changes their position, the article should be revised with the new information. I think simply changing the language from "is going to permit him to be speak" to "is permitting him to speak" would be sufficient. Do we agree? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that Florida's governor has declared a state of emergency, which is attracting quite a lot of media attention, this might be worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, I agree. Do you want to make draft changes--possibly directly to the article? I do think the lawsuit with Auburn and the event that followed should be added as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No, first I'd rather get a rough consensus with input from Rockypedia, Calton, and any others who might have thoughts on it. It's coming up on Thursday so the whole WP:CRYSTAL thing will resolve itself shortly, but I do think the level of coverage now that the state of emergency has been declared warrants a mention in the article. However, I would rather achieve some agreement here before barging in and re-adding contested content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the state of emergency declaration probably raises the profile of the event significantly; that WaPo article is a good source to start with. Rockypedia (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I've added it to the article, along with a brief mention of the amount of money spent on security and the outcome of his speech, both of which received heavy news coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestive wording

Just a minor concern. It feels rather off, sort of deliberately suggestive, to write about Spencer's opinion on Hitler the way this article does. Stating that he called things Hitler did despicable "without elaborating on which things he was referring to" is seriously suggestive. It deliberately raises the question of whether he is OK with various horrible things Hitler did. Merely stating that he said Hitler had "done things that I think are despicable" on its own impresses the general vagueness without pointing out that he didn't specify. If, in the interview, he specifically refused to go into specifics then it might be better to state that he was pressed to be more specific but refused. This makes it more clear that his lack of specificity was deliberate. But if he simply didn't specify, pointing out this lack of specificity is unnecessary and highly suggestive. If the journalist report this was taken from included this, then it should be specifically quoted to make it clear that this is a reference to a statement by another party. Otherwise, deeming it noteworthy to declare "he didn't specify" raises questions on the impartiality of the article. Plenty of people have said that Hitler and various other people have done horrible things and it's not considered noteworthy to mention that they didn't get into specifics after all.98.197.193.213 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The language reflects what is in the WP:RS provided. It is, however, just one article, and appears consistent with the New York Times article where supporters give the Nazi-salute and he uses the phrase "Hail ." If you have other WP:RS that shows that he condemns Hitler and/or the KKK, let's see it. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That was not my point. He's denounced a number of aspects of white supremacy according to this article, such as the subjugation/enslavement of other races, but even if that is so, it's irrelevant to the way the description is stated. The point is that the very inclusion of a statement that he didn't specify what acts he did or didn't agree with creates a speculative implication, a suggestion that his omission was deliberate. If this was the case then it should be noted as a referenced point, perhaps even reworded to state that he "refused" to be more specific. If it wasn't the case then this amounts to nothing more than an editor wanting to make sure that people know Spencer hasn't directly denounced specific acts in said interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.193.213 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"He's denounced a number of aspects of white supremacy according to this article, such as the subjugation/enslavement of other races." Not true. Show us a quote from the article that he says enslavement or lynching are wrong. Everything I read in the article appears consistent with a White Supremacist outlook and belief that non-Anglo-Saxons are inferior to Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxons somehow have a "right" to own "their homeland" of America, and that non-whites should be made to leave and that this might involve violence. Sounds quite a bit like Hitler to me.

"is omission was deliberate." It was. He was being evasive by saying, "I won't play this game." That's what the writer is pointing out. When asked what "despicable things" Hitler did, he won't answer. Reasonable people would point out--without hesitation--the Holocaust.

The language we use matches what is in the article. If you have other WP:RS showing his criticism of white supremacy, Nazi's, Hitler, the KKK, etc. let's see it. I feel like you want to re-write this article for the author based on re-analysis of the facts, which is WP:OR. I don't see you getting much traction from relying exclusively on this article, which paints a very unflattering picture of Spencer. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit more sympathetic to 98.197.193.213's point. However all we can do is relay what the reliable sources are saying, and I don't believe the reliable sources answer 98.197.193.213's question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this audio recording of the interview will answer the OP's question. I personally have little interest in listening to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the question? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I listened to 44:40-50:00. I do now agree with 98.197.193.213 that the WP:RS under discussion was a bit biased or misleading in its representation of that part of the discussion, in key parts it left out. Although it is is safe to conclude that Spencer did not wish to completely "condemn" Hilter and the KKK, he indicated disapproval of both lynching and the Holocaust, and said he believes in non-violence. From reading the WP:RS under discussion, I had the false impression that he also refused to condemn lynching or the Holocaust--I prefer we not mislead readers in that way. My guess from listening to the exchange is that Spencer approves of Hitler's and the KKK's beliefs in white superiority, which is why he did not want to completely condemn either. I might be open to a revision to the language of the WP:lede to be more like the body. I'm open to other suggested revised language.

FYI. Spencer said at 43:50, "In the United State, when people say, 'the American people', 'Are you going to stick up for us?' I do think--whether they know it or not--they are assuming white people." That as well as his other comments confirm my acceptance of the label "white supremacist" that 98.197.193.213 is opposed to. Spencer did also say he was opposed to white separatism; however, he simultaneously seems to advocate for an all-white America. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Wire isn't reliable, and this is a great example of why. But I haven't managed to find a reliable secondary source that covers the interview. Can anyone else? If not, should we citing The Daily Caller source directly? I hate citing The Daily Caller, which isn't reliable as a secondary source, but in this case it could be used as a primary source for the recording itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If we can't find a reliable secondary source, perhaps we should use the SoundCloud link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I would go further than this. Given that Spencer has specifically denied being a "white supremacist", the same logic appears to apply; in the absence of some statement of his that confirms the dictionary definition of "supremacist", and keeping in mind the dictionary definition of "supreme", it seems to me a direct contradiction of his statement by him is necessary, or, at least, something substantially MORE than just the weakly supported opinion of some writer, group of writers, or media personalities, before the assertion of "supremacist" can be used. A "guess" is not enough, and a thought that his reference to the American people likely included only whites is really not enough, either; I am frankly very disappointed that anyone would feel that such thinking would be seriously entertained by anyone here. This nation exists as a consequence of enormous immigration from all over the globe by persons of every color and creed over four hundred years; no sane person would believe that a reference to Americans implied only one color absent total ignorance or a substantial political motive. Various groups supported the creation of racial nations on various grounds in the past, and a few such nations still exist, and although times have changed, I can't recall any of the people involved ever having been labeled racial supremacists at ANY time, then or since. I believe the entire purpose of such labeling to be entirely political, and a basis for denying Spencer any speech rights at all. As far as I am concerned, this labeling does NOT support the denial of speech rights, but it is clear that some institutions believe otherwise, and Misplaced Pages's contribution to that support is to be avoided. It reflects very poorly on some of the persons involved, who would never support, for example, any theory that the Muslim religion perceived its beliefs as supremacist, though in fact some of the leaders of that religion quite readily espouse just that view, and are quite open about it.2001:5B0:47C4:D078:C818:5F20:7573:33D8 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "white supremacist", we've already heard and discussed all this before, the IP is introducing nothing new at all, and nothing has changed. I've said more times than I can count that we've discussed this more times than I can count. Please look through the talk pages' archives for some discussions of exactly this issue, but also note that there are plenty more where that come from on other talk pages and notice boards.

White supremacy is broad concept which is studied in depth by academics (which Spencer is not), commented on by experts (which Spencer is not), and reported on by journalists (which Spencer is not). Trying to muddle the definition of the phrase "white supremacy" by chopping it up into its component words is a distraction at best. Likewise with the bit about unnamed hypothetical historical nations. He is still a white supremacist according to a constantly increasing number of reliable sources, and that's what matters to Misplaced Pages. Personal speculating about the motives for (accurately) labeling his positions do not belong here. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thanks for that exposition. I would have hated to have tried to respond to that! It would be nice to have hard links to old discussions like this, especially for perennial issues, objections, etc. I have seen FAQ's created before, but I do not like those, as they are like separate articles within the talk page and are biased to only include the majority opinion. Hard links to old discussions (hard meaning--unchanging and not to be archived) are less likely to suffer from bias than hard summaries of past discussions, which are found in FAQs. Hard links to old discussions let readers review the discussions (including minority opinions)and conclude for themselves how any consensus was formed, who said what, and what the merits of the reasoning were, including the dissent. It is more work for the reader than a FAQ, of course, but I really do feel that FAQs are inappropriate on talk pages, except to answer the question: Where was this discussed before? Your summary is fine, because it is a soft summary, and you are clearly the author of the summary: It is not written with Wikivoice authority, like the FAQs I have seen. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nina Kouprianova

Nina Kouprianova is not Russian American. She has immigrated to the United States and was not born in the United States. Kouprianova is Russian and probably has as much respect to the United States as Alexander Dugin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The case with Spencer looks like the old saying Cherchez la femme. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Russian-American label, since it failed verification. Thanks for the tip. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Research -- what is on his website

This is original research, right?

His website says he left Duke "to pursue a life of thought-crime."

References

1. "About". RichardBSpencer.com. Retrieved November 22, 2016.

Not only that, the link is broken. I propose we strike it out. However, I know there may be certain reasons we include self-incriminating statements in Misplaced Pages. If there is a rule for that which is applicable, I'm all ears.

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, his website did actually say that. I don't see an issue, it's his own self-description of why he left. I interpreted it as a dig (by Spencer) at Duke or academia more generally.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Imagine how much drama the world would've been spared had Duke taught him why his ideas were wrong, instead of letting him go. Anyway, I don't think this is OR as it is a direct quote. But if the link is broken, that is problematic, and one could argue the quote is now undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not original research. Review WP:PRIMARY. We are allowed to use primary sources. t becomes problematic is when large passages are based on them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally frowned upon. However, in this specific context the standard is WP:SELFPUB. I do believe it meets the requirements of that standard, if and only if: (1) the website can be verified as belonging to him and under his exclusive control and (2) the statement was not the result of a hacker.

I would be more comfortable if a secondary source mentioned it. I just looked, and it appears there is at least one secondary source: . I will add it. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that you added that source I've removed the ref to Spencer's dead website. There's no benefit to retaining a superfluous primary source that contains misinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of "Views" sections

How should the "Views" section be ordered? A new section was just added, placing his views on the Iraq war at the top. I'm going to reorder it, but it'd be nice to get some additional feedback so this isn't just my own decision alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In proportion to the WP:RS coverage of the views:

(1) Race

(2) Women

(3)-(4) either order Trump; Homosexuality

(5) Iraq War

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would change the title "Race" to "Race and Ethnicity." They are not the same. ("Ethnicity vs Race - Difference and Comparison | Diffen". Retrieved 2017-10-20.) --David Tornheim (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a question of what source to use to decide upon an order and how to present that order from an MOS and BLPSTYLE perspective. Some things to watch:

• Weighing up sources to derive an order. To avoid Synth/OR, we shouldn't perform our own research on mentions of this subject by number of google hits per category. This might yield results, but we risk tainting them by making personal decisions on search terms etc.
• We shouldn't be too specific when listing these topics. If we can write this section as a flowing section of prose rather than making it seem like a list of views on each subject, we can avoid making it look like the subject headings were decided upon (i.e. synthesized) by our editors.
• We should probably take a single source, which deals with some of his views, and then present the material in our article in the order used in that source, that way we are basing our decisions on some actual tangible source material.

I'll add to this thread with some suggestions later.

Edaham (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the ordering be based on how the sources do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

there's no requirement. It's just a good idea. You're welcome. Edaham (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Some good ideas by Edaham. I certainly prefer a good narrative. I do find it interesting the issue of "making it look like the subject headings were decided upon (i.e. synthesized) by our editors." Of course, the people who write articles about his views are doing the same thing, especially relevant is the now-deleted sentence of his "refusal to renounce Hitler." There is no question that he has views that no one is writing about, some which may be far more important to him and his overall belief system than what is being presented in the media (or possibly even in his speeches or writings). I'm only saying this to point out that there really is no "correct" way to organize or categorize a person's views--this is all too familiar to me from studying intellectual giants like Descartes, Plato, Nietzsche, etc. Any choice will be subjective, and include labels the subject might find deeply offensive (e.g. many philosophers did not want to be labelled Existentialists; Alice Walker did not like being categorized in African-American fiction; Salman Rushdie did not want to have a nationality assigned to his writing). Regardless of this point, I do tend to agree with Edaham that our choice of organization should reflect the WP:RS if that is possible. I'm not sure it is. Sorry if everyone reading this is already well aware of this issue. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Univ. of Florida covarage

Some interesting articles worth noting:

• "University president: Richard Spencer hoping for violence to build movement". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2017-10-19.
• CNN, Eric Levenson,. "Richard Spencer, police and protesters descend on Univ. of Florida". CNN. Retrieved 2017-10-19. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Pearce, Matt (2017-10-19). "University of Florida and local authorities brace for speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2017-10-19.
• "Richard Spencer speaks at University of Florida today. Who is he?". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2017-10-19.

I also found this, which is probably good WP:RS for the article in general:

• Wood, Graeme. "Richard Spencer Was My High-School Classmate". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-10-19.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempted Murder Charge After Event (for supporters)

• Pearce, Matt. "White nationalist shot at protesters after Richard Spencer speech in Florida, police say". latimes.com. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
• "Richard Spencer supporters have been charged in a post-speech shooting". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-10-20.

Section proposal: Spencer at UF

I proposing to add content and create a new section. The event seems significant, especially given the continued coverage due to the actions of Spencer's supporters. I wanted to propose it here first given that it's a BLP article.

Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida

Citations to be provided. Any feedback? Another option is to create a new article, such as Richard Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida; I believe that the event is already sufficiently notable. Or it could be 2017 University of Florida area shooting, with Spencer's speach as background. It's possible that the shooting, given the gravity of the charges, is more notable than the speach. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I haven't read all the articles carefully, but of those that I read, it looks fairly consistent with them. However, I would be cautious with this wording, "When drowned out by the protestors, Spencer suggested that they were engaged in the "heckler's veto", allegedly infringing on his first amendment rights." It gives the impression that a heckler's veto is by definition always an infringement of first amendment rights. I do not believe it is that cut and dry, especially from reading our article on the subject and reading some of the case law. (Our article on the subject is not that well-written FYI.) Also, I do not believe Spencer is an attorney, so his opinion on what constitutes free speech is probably pretty murky, whereas if this came from his attorney it might make more sense. So on that matter, let's stay close to what the source said rather than our own opinions about what a heckler's veto is, unless you are an attorney who knows that area of law. The sentence that follows of the opinion by the Brenchner is clearly Brenchner's opinion and I am guessing he is an attorney. If you give some of the sources you are relying on, that would help a lot, even if you don't assign them to specific sentences.

As for making a new article on just this one speech, I don't think it is sufficiently notable right now or separate from Spencer to justify its own article. The event where someone ran over a bunch of protesters probably is though. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am reading, "COMMENT: TINKER'S TIMELESS TEACHING: WHY THE HECKLER'S VETO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, 86 Miss. L.J. 409." It looks to me like the Heckler's veto doctrine is that one cannot be censored by the government, because of the heckler's behavior. (See for example: ). That's quite different than hecklers making so much noise you can't be heard. The police did not shut him down from what I read, so I don't understand the claim of an infringement of his rights. (This article agrees with my analysis.) I would like to see the article where he or his attorney makes such a claim. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision: Spencer at UF

Revisions, with sources added.

On October 19, 2017, Spencer spoke at the University of Florida in a planned speech. In addition to Spencer, the speakers included Eli Mosley of Identity Evropa, a white supremacist group from California, and Mike Enoch, a white nationalist blogger. The event reportedly cost an estimated $600,000 in security costs. It drew about 2,500 of protestors who demonstrated on university grounds and heckled Spencer inside the venue.

When drowned out by the protestors, he grew visibly frustrated and said, "you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler's veto.” According to Clay Calvert, director of the the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, non-violent protesting, booing and suggesting that the speaker leave was not a heckler's veto in law. The speech and the concurrent protests were largely peaceful.

Later that day, three of Spencer's supporters were arrested on felony charges following an alleged discharge of a firearm, directed at protestors leaving the event. The three suspects were residents of Texas who had travelled to Florida to hear Spencer speak. According to the Gainesville Police Department, they had shouted “Hail Hitler” and gave Nazi salutes immediately before the alleged attack. Authorities said that two of the suspects had known links to extremist groups. Two of the suspects had participated in the August 2017 Unite the Right rally, where Spencer had been scheduled to speak.

References

1. "Richard Spencer gets drowned out by boos at UF speech", WFLA
2. "'Go home, racist!' Richard Spencer shouted down at University of Florida speech", USA Today
3. "White supremacist Richard Spencer faces barrage of protest at Florida speech", The Guardian"
4. "Richard Spencer Shouted Down in Florida, Cuts his Speech Short", Newsweek
5. "Behind-scenes logistics at protest let officers control chaos", The Gainesville Sun
6. "3 Men Arrested After Shooting at Richard Spencer's University of Florida Speech", Time
7. "White supremacist supporters of Richard Spencer open fire on counter-protesters", Think Progress

Thanks for the feedback; I added the citations and implemented some changes. It looks like the shooting may be more significant than the speech. There's already pushback from other universities on the requests from Spencer to let him speak, citing "the events in Florida on Thursday". So there will definitely be some fallout from this for Spencer's speaking program. I did add the article where the scholar (Clay Calvert) discusses Spencer's claim on "heckler's veto". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision and the refs.

Further comments:

• Please take out ", and ultimately the taxpayers," which was not in the original article and is an inference. Although the claim is made prominently in this article, it has bothered me since I read it, because significant sums of money in public universities come from rich donors, foundations, trust funds, etc. I think it's true tax payers paid a significant amount--especially for local and state police, but the amount U. of F. spent coming from tax payer money is probably very difficult to quantify.
• I still has some issues with the "heckler's veto" stuff, but I don't have easy fixes at this point. One of the problems is that the WP:RS says that Spencer is complaining about a "heckler's veto," but it is written as an after-thought of saying that the situation does not meet the legal definition of a "heckler's veto." Without the original quote from Spencer or his attorney, it's hard to tell whether he is making a legal claim or not. Because the reporting is weak, it's hard to make this clear in the article. If you see a source that directly quotes Spencer or his attorney so we can be clear whether this is or is not a legal claim on his part, that would help. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Heckler's veto"

Spencer did mention it while on stage:

• "Fielding a variety of questions from audience members, Spencer said he does not provoke violence and disavowed comparisons to Adolf Hitler. He also accused the crowd of trying to impede his freedom of speech. “What you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler’s veto,” he told the crowd. "Richard Spencer UF speech", The News-Press

Here's a related piece: Richard Spencer Has Only Himself to Blame for Hecklers, by Noah Feldman who is a law scholar:

• Hecklers who shouted down the white supremacist Thursday at his University of Florida speech were invited guests, not government crashers. They held tickets distributed by Spencer’s own National Policy Institute. So they didn’t violate Spencer’s free speech rights by drowning him out with chants telling him to go home.

I think this discussion is worth including as the big part of Spencer's argument was free speech. PS -- I removed the reference to "taxpayers", leaving just the overall cost. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks that helps a lot. Rather the discuss, I'm going to just revise your draft. If you don't like just revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I made these minor changes to address my concerns about the heckler's veto: . By quoting him directly, the ambiguity about whether he was making a legal claim or not is more evident. The response by the attorney is clarified to refer only to the legal form of heckler's veto.

Otherwise, I did not see any other issues, except that this could be simplified:

"2,500...protestors who demonstrated...and heckled Spencer....Unable to deliver his prepared remarks, Spencer grew visibly frustrated ....heckler's veto. When drowned out by the protestors...non-violent protest, booing and suggesting that the speaker leave..."

I find quite a bit of redundancy about the heckling/being drowned out/not able to talk/protesting/etc. Deleting "Unable to deliver his prepared remarks," for example, shouldn't cost anything, since it is implied by "drowned out." Hence this change. There are probably some other ways of cutting down the word count. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Can you add a source for the direct quote? Not seeing it in any of the ones in the article around that section. I tried to look at the News-Press source above but am getting a 503 at the moment. I mostly ask because the grammar is weird. Right now the sentence reads When drowned out by the protestors, he grew visibly frustrated and said, "you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler's veto.”. It seems like either "is" was added by mistake, or the sentence needs to be preceded by "what". GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the Press-News' citation; I'm not getting an error message. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah yeah, it's working for me now too. I tried to add an archived version in case it's on a flaky server, but got a "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." error. Weird. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, @K.e.coffman: Thanks for the catch and attempt to fix the link. Sadly, it was in the original. .

Question 1: How about simplifying it to:

(a) "you are all engaged in... heckler’s veto."

(b) "you are all engaged in...the heckler’s veto."

or follow more standard quotation rules:

(c) put "..." where the "is" was

(d) leave the extra "is" in and put . I actually oppose this unless we can verify Spencer actually said it that way, which I doubt. I think it was probably a mistake in the article that we do not need to call attention

or:

(e) leave it as K.e.coffman has it: removing the spurious "is"

I was actually planning on making the change to (a) or (b) last night before hearing about this glaring grammatical error, but I wanted to make sure the quote stuck first. I see that K.e.coffman ended did remove the "is", but also ended up restoring some of my simplifications, so now I'm not sure if (a) or (b) fits better not, depending on how we answer Q2 below.

Question 2: GorillaWarfare (and anyone else reading this), what is you opinion on which is better: simplified language or restoration to more wordy version?

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL

These groups have been proven to be highly inaccurate and AWFUL sources. There’s plenty of info out there about Spencer without using those two messes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.105.160 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're an unbiased authority. They have not been "proven" anything of the sort as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. They are both generally considered reliable for the topic of hate-movements and extremism in the U.S., which both apply to Spencer. This has already been discussed repeatedly, in excruciating detail, at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell. Thanks again. Please see my comment above about perennial objections and how we might treat them with hardlinks to past discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

William Regnery II - the man who spent years funding the racist right

See this article. Perhaps he should be mentioned here. He's the guy who funded the National Policy Institute. One of the authors of the report is Aram Roston Other sources (courtesy User:Aquillion)

• Mother Jones article about him personally.
• Daily Dot article about him personally.
• Relevant mentions and quotes in Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Newsweek.

Looks to me as though we could have a section on him and his role in funding. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose At Misplaced Pages's National Policy Institute page, William Regnery II is mentioned only twice—both times identifying him as founder but saying nothing more. Blink and you'll miss him. To accord him an entire section here in our Richard B. Spencer BLP would violate WP:UNDUE. KalHolmann (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It does look like those sources contain info that could be used to expand the National Policy Institute article a bit. But not here. Rockypedia (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think an entire section would necessarily be appropriate (we don't have enough to fill a section anyway.) But I think a sentence or two could be worthwhile given that we have multiple sources identifying him as crucial to Spencer's rise to prominence. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, if not a section then he certainly should be mentioned. He's such a shadowy figure his article was a redirect until a few weeks ago. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

^I agree. I saw his name come up when I was reading about Spencer--probably in one or more of the articles you mention. Before I saw this post, if you had asked me, "Who is funding Spencer?" I would have said, William Regnery II. Without more evidence to the contrary, I still believe that to be the case. So yes, it definitely belongs in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

He grew up in Preston Hollow, Dallas, so he's a member of the 1%. But yes, he was hired by Regnery to run the think tank. There should be multiple RS stating that fact?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

^I did think that of him or his parents, or that he had some huge trust fund, but now those other article left me thinking it was Regnery doing the heavy financial lifting. I agree it would be better if we could verify and support with more WP:RS. However, I think with the WP:RS presented so far that Regenery deserves a mention in this article right now for his role in funding--whatever percent it actually is. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Like all think tanks, NPI fundraises.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How are you supposed to reach a consensus?

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

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

Change from "American White supremacist" to "American White nationalist". A White Nationalist wants a nation dominated by his race of people, their laws and culture. It is not the traditional definition of a White Supremacist. A White Supremacist thinks they are superior in every way than people of color, especially Blacks, and would choose to lord it over them in every way within their own country. I suspect there are very few true White Supremacists still around, and Richard Spencer does not appear to me to fit that mold at all. Using this term as you have is outdated, sloppy, and very broad-brushed IMO. Thanks you for the opportunity to express my suggested change here in editing. 606jms (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SparklingPessimist 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference, clearly intended to lend a veneer of respectability. Highly objectionable. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2017

This discussion was listed at Misplaced Pages:Move review on 3 November 2017.

Edaham (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist) – Adding an RM template to existing discussion. Please see below for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous section name was "Disambiguation --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what the template says, Richard Spencer doesn't redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Should we move this page to Richard Spencer (white supremacist)? Nobody calls him Richard B. Spencer. Smooth alligator (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense, I would have no problem with that. Rockypedia (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If the note at the top is wrong, then fix it. Yes, reliable sources label him as such, but I'm not sure if "Name (white supremacist)" is a proper thing to use to separate an article name from another, that seems to be going a little too far. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? It's what he's notable for. It works for Don Black (white supremacist), Paul Fromm (white supremacist), and David Lane (white supremacist), and maybe more, I haven't gone past the first page in searching. It's certainly not a slur, as sources such as the NYT use it routinely to describe those are primarily known for advocating white supremacy. What's the issue in making the name of the article consistent with the subject's description in the first sentence? Rockypedia (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that is what he is notable for, I'm not making any sort of pro-supremacist argument here, but I don't think it should be a first choice. The middle initial should be sufficient to disambiguate by. ValarianB (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I get that that's your opinion, but that's just not rooted in any policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be Richard Spencer, not Richard B. Spencer. And since there's other Richard Spencers, the parenthetical after the name is appropriate. Your unease with the term "white supremacist" is not a barrier; there's been massive discussion about that and the overwhelming consensus was that it's what he's notable for, and you seem to agree with that. If it's good enough for the first sentence, it's good enough for the title. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

All rules have exceptions, and editors seems to be fond of WP:IAR when it can be reasonably justified. In looking through the requested move archives, it seems there was once quite a tussle over Sarah Jane Brown, as most did not want to define her as a wife, even if it arguably all that she is notable for. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I have been in favor of this for a long time. Maybe a year ago there was a discussion about this that did not lead to a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. I believe we have discussed this before. It should be in the talkpage archive. Lots of RS call him a "white nationalist" and lots of IP addresses keep reminding us of this. Besides, he may change his mind at one point. "Richard B. Spencer" is the most NPOV way to name this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

See my response to ValarianB above; the same argument applies. In addition, if he "changes his mind" at some point (seems highly unlikely), we can always move the article again. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Give it up. It's going to create too much drama. We should be focusing on adding more referenced content. This is a distraction.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't find "give it up" a convincing argument for keeping the title of the article the same. Rockypedia (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Anyway, I've given you enough reasons for keeping it as it is (already discussed, been stable for a while, avoids drama, saves us time, remains consistent no matter what Spencer's views might become one day). Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding drama, is not a part of and has the potential to be in conflict with Misplaced Pages's objectives. Denouncing proposals based on your unwillingness to maintain bold adherence to reliable sources in the face of potential partisan opposition is contrary to our most basic editing policies. Edaham (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In a book published by the Columbia University Press, NPI is described as a "white-nationalist organization" (page 59 of Hawley's book). So yes, it's a waste of our time to argue over this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the subject has a verifiable middle initial that can be used to disambiguate. Barring that, I'd find Richard Spencer (born 1978) as a reasonable alternative format that appears to be used in some biographical articles. Or perhaps Richard Spencer (activist). A living person, as distasteful as much of the world may find him and his views, should not be defined by one ideological viewpoint to the point that it is a part of his article's title. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support – per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. That’s what is included in the first sentence of the article. He is notable for being a white supremacist. Unless we are prepared to change the first sentence of the article, this disambiguation is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Note: I added an RM template to this discussion; hope this works! diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason we don't have an article called "Malcolm X (Black Supremacist)" Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Because it's factually incorrect? That rationale clearly doesn't apply here. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB. His middle initial is used by reliable sources such as the NY Times, Washington Post and USA Today. When a natural, neutral alternative name is available for disambiguation, it's almost always preferable to an artificial parenthetical qualifier, especially for a person. Station1 (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a stretch to me. WP:NATURAL specifically says "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called" (emphasis added). There's no way that Spencer is "commonly" called "Richard B. Spencer"; there's three good sources that you pointed out, and after a search I really didn't see one other good one (yes, there's a ton of verbatim copies of the USA Today article because of how they distribute their copy; I'm not sure that counts as commonly either). 99.9% of reliable sources, and really, online mentions in general, omit the middle initial. Rockypedia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a stretch; I just picked the 3 most reliable sources that popped up on the first page of a Google search as examples. Don't know why you can't find others, but in a few minutes I found examples at The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, MSN, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, The Chicago Tribune, and Getty Images, among others. It's a matter of opinion, of course, whether all those sources make it common, but it seems quite common to me. What is factually false, however, is the nom rationale that "Nobody calls him Richard B. Spencer". Station1 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. WP:INITS is pretty clear: Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources....Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised. I don't think anyone here would say that using the middle initial is the most common format of this name in reliable sources. So, we should drop it and use a parenthetical, as is standard WP practice. Dohn joe (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons stated above by Dohn Joe and others. Fluous (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He isn't called Richard B. Spencer ever, so there's no acceptable form of natural disambiguation here (per WP:NATDIS's, don't use obscure or made-up names). The proposed disambiguator is much more recognizable. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because Richard B. Spencer is subject's pen name. A recent RM (Talk:Ben Wattenberg#Requested move 4 July 2017) decided that although Ben Wattenberg's pen name on the covers of his books was Ben J. Wattenberg, his common name was Ben Wattenberg, with no other Misplaced Pages headers bearing that exact name. Here, we have nine men named "Richard Spencer" with three of them (Richard V. Spencer, F. Richard Spencer and Richard B. Spencer) indicated with initials. Since Amazon has a link for "Books by Richard B. Spencer" and The New York Times referred to him as "Richard B. Spencer" in the lead paragraph of their article about him, it would seem that "Richard B. Spencer" may be considered to be his WP:COMMONNAME. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So, he's sometimes referred to as "Richard B. Spencer." Okay, point taken. But the rule/ guideline in WP:INITS says to use the most common format of a name. "Richard B. Spencer" is absolutely a minority usage. And how we treat other Richard Spencers is immaterial to this discussion. Perhaps those names should be changed, too! Perhaps a middle initial really is the most common name for them. Who knows? That's for a discussion on their article talk pages; not here. Fluous (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you would be changing his name to "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)", because that's what it would look like. He is never referred to as "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)", although he is sometimes referred to as "white supremacist Richard Spencer". Why not move it to white supremacist Richard Spencer then? He will no doubt use this in his fundraising campaigns--I don't think the guy needs more money--so no, terrible idea!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Three of the men at the Richard Spencer disambiguation page are known to use an initial and are so listed. The others are not and are thus listed with parenthetical qualifiers. Other than a handful of people who would be unrecognizable without their middle initials (such as actors Edward G. Robinson or Leo G. Carroll) almost no one is continually referenced via a middle-initial name. John F. Kelly is commonly known as simply "John Kelly", but the John Kelly dab page contains articles for 71 men bearing that name and Misplaced Pages must have a quarter of a million entries for people with middle initials. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to a very high degree and if so strict a standard for the use of middle initials were to be applied, very few main headers would be eligible for such structuring. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support some move. "Richard Spencer" is much more common in the sources. Not sure about the disambiguator, "white nationalist" would also do.--Cúchullain /c 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is a solution in search of a problem. Naming conventions indicate that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. WP:NCPDAB does offer the example of George H W Bush and George W Bush as being preferred over parenthetical. WP:INITS appears to be misused above as an argument for {white supremacist) when it actually supports the initial. It specifies "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." (emphasis mine) Note that it says "not commonly used" not "not the most common usage". Numerous examples of the middle initial in RS easily satisfy this requirement.

If, however, there is a consensus here to go with a parenthetical, (activist) would be a more neutral way of putting it that avoids BLP concerns. We should try to be as minimally controversial as we can, and labeling someone "white supremacist" in the article title is probably one of the most controversial labels that can be applied to a person. Since the article has been stable at this title for quite some time, the current title is commonly used by RS and is within policy, I am unsure what the motive would be for pushing so hard for this change to address a problem that doesn't exist. The Wordsmith 00:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:INITS does say to generally use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources. That most common format here is without the initial. If the parenthetical is problematic, I'd be open to another one. Dohn joe (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)" is not the most common name. Assuming "Richard Spencer" is the most common name but is ambiguous, we must choose between using a "B." or "(white supremacist)". Of the two, "B." is more common, natural, concise and neutral, all of which are preferred by policy at WP:AT. - Station1 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh come now. This argument reflects a total lack of understanding of routine disambiguation practices (not to mention WP:TITLE, and WP:DAB). Veteran editors should not be saying that we should omit a parenthetical because it's not the most common name. By that logic we'd have no parentheticals at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we use parentheticals when necessary, which is often, but should not when unnecessary, as here. I've already cited WP:TITLE, which says "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" and that parenthetical disambiguation is standard "when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title", as well as WP:DAB, which says "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". There must be many thousands of articles that use a person's middle name or initial to disambiguate. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

::This is comparing apples to oranges because George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush were actually referred to using those initials once George W. Bush got into politics. (Or sometimes people just called the younger Bush "Dubya"). Smooth alligator (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And Spencer is commonly referred to with the middle initials, as the RS examples above show. Perhaps not 501% of references to his name, but enough that it is considered "common" for naming convention purposes. The Wordsmith 00:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nine sources that use the middle initial "B" is not "commonly" when compared to the thousands of articles that don't use the initial. WP:INITS specificies "most common", and when it's a tiny, tiny, fraction of sources that use the B., I don't know how you can say that's "common" usage with a straight face. It's a ridiculous assertion. Rockypedia (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: The proposed title lets an uninformed reader know more about the subject from the outset of the search process. Passes BLP and NPOV per WP:BLPNAME which states, When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Misplaced Pages normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. - arguments to the contrary ignore weight and the common sense issue of readily making information available to readers. Additionally, the only two opposing arguments based on policy thus far cite WP:NCPDAB. Per the recommendations herein, using source material to create a title strongly supports the use of (White Supremacist) as a more specific title: The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right. Edaham (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support strongly, if he isn't known by a middle name or initial, it is a stretch to use it as a disambiguation marker. Spencer is internationally known for his white supremacist views, so it is a perfectly acceptable parenthetical to use. TheValeyard (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This could probably be resolved by moving the article to the plain title Richard Spencer as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I just noticed that, of the nine articles on the dab page, Richard B. Spencer gets well over 90% of the pageviews (over 95% if you include the occasional spikes when he's in the news). Station1 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Sock edits struck - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support The WP:INITS argument - against using middle initials purely to disambiguate - is fairly convincing to me, and as a parantheticaled description I see no better than 'White Supremacist' which sticks by the vast majority of reliable sources in a way that the proposed 'activist' by Wordsmith does not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. It really squicks me out to take the side of a group of two or so editors here who are using policy/guideline alphabet soup to give themselves cover when they're obviously doing this because they're ideologically opposed to this guy. I mean, WP:INITS has, in one form or another, been around for over a decade. Where'd this enthusiasm to enforce it come from all of a sudden? To my mind, being honest wouldn't even be particularly controversial. Just say "per WP:IAR because this guy sucks and he'd hate it if we did this." I mean, IAR is a policy so that reasoning would have to have as much weight as people citing other rules and guidelines, wouldn't it?

That said, I still support per User:Edaham, who said "The proposed title lets an uninformed reader know more about the subject from the outset of the search process." This, to me, is an obviously good goal: we should let you know if you're at the right article as soon as possible, even if, because you're typing something into the search box, you're not even there yet. A parenthetical is preferable to an initial per the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:COMMONNAME. Enforcing INITS on this highly visible article had damn well better set a backlog-creating precedent, and if this passes, let's hope some of those voters up there remain fired up accordingly. CityOfSilver 06:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I really liked this vote, wounding though it may be. It'd be fantastic if this wiki had more editors like you and less like me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So, like Talk:Alan_K._Simpson#Requested_move_24_October_2017? Dohn joe (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: I was mostly worried about the other Richard Spencers. (Richards Spencer?) I definitely believe this enthusiasm will be replicated. But I don't think it's because anybody cares about INITS. (The question was, why now? That guideline is at least 12 years old and it's been ignored and violated the whole time.) A lot of people will go on an anti-initial campaign because the site will need to point at discussions like Simpson's if Spencer and his minions throw a public fit about this. CityOfSilver 17:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

CityOfSilver, I don't think it's appropriate to question the Support !voters' intention this way. Aside from the AGF angle, it's simply inaccurate to say that there is some sudden new zeal to enforce WP:INITS. The same proposal was made in January and did not reach a consensus. The January proposal came right on the heels of a talk page consensus that Spencer should be described as a white supremacist. There was no chance of the move proposal succeeding until then. So I don't see anything suspect in the slightest about the timing of this proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Dr. Fleischman and I'd also like to point out it's possible to both be against Spencer's beliefs and dispassionately edit Misplaced Pages according to policy. I count myself in those two groups, and I support this proposal due to policy reasons. For an example the other way, I've spent a significant amount of time in the last week researching and removing individuals from the Alt-right footer because, while they may racist and hateful, reliable sources did not support the assertion that they were alt-right. I just point this out because I feel most of the "oppose" votes are simply afraid of offending Spencer's followers, and they're actually the ones not giving policy reasons for an oppose vote. The support votes are all firmly grounded in logic and reason. Rockypedia (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Honestly, I'm more concerned with the location than the timing and I probably could have made that more clear. I actually called myself out for failing to assume good faith with this edit summary (where I should have said WP:IAR, not WP:ANI). So accusing me of failing to assume good faith is both fair and right. It's just, "it's simply inaccurate to say that there is some sudden new zeal to enforce WP:INITS"? But there is a zeal, and it is new. The name of Alan Simpson's article did not comply with INITS since it was created thirteen years ago and nobody cared until August, right between the two discussions here.

We've got an opportunity to piss off a truly execrable person in Spencer and we wouldn't be violating policy by explaining that we're doing this because we don't like him. It would be an in-policy argument with as much weight as INITS, COMMONNAME, or any of the other stuff cited here to say, "I don't care about the other rules, I just want this asshole to have another big tantrum in public." (Hell, it would have to carry more weight than INITS because that's a mere guideline while IAR is policy.) Someone saying that would not be a bad faith actor. But someone believing that and saying, "Oh, per some obscure guideline that we've ignored from its creation" would be acting in bad faith. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck or a cynic when I say I truly wish I could assume good faith as far as you and, to be honest, most people on this website. But I can't.

If you want to insist on connecting the dots between Alan K. Simpson and Richard B. Spencer and accusing folks such as myself of being motivated by a dislike of the subject, I'm not going to stop you, but I do find it weakly argued, inaccurate, offensive, and counterproductive. At least you did so in a superficially civil manner, so that's something I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I was coy but it would have been easy to suss that you were one of the people I was talking about at the beginning of my vote here. You've been here over nine years and up until just now, when you edit conflicted me at the Simpson discussion, you apparently had no issue with his article being incorrectly named. I guess it's lucky for me that AGF isn't a policy because there's just no way I can see it. "...it's possible to both be against Spencer's beliefs and dispassionately edit Misplaced Pages according to policy... I never said anything different but it's possible to be against Spencer's beliefs, edit because you're against his beliefs, and edit according to policy. I believe that's happened repeatedly here, and I won't deny that it was part of the reason I support this move. If you cite IAR, you're adhering to policy. CityOfSilver 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I went to the Simpson discussion because you mentioned it, so I took a look. It seemed like a clear-cut case to me, so I voiced my opinion there. What am I supposed to do, spend 24/7 for the past 9 years looking for article name inconsistencies just to cover myself against accusations of "you never had a problem with that BEFORE" ?? I find that an odd take on your part. Also the whole "I assume good faith because of policy even though I'm going to basically say I don't assume good faith from you" bit seems unnecessary. Maybe keep it to "I support this move because that's what policy says" and leave it at that. Take the rest to my talk page, if you must. Rockypedia (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I do appreciate your support of my vote. You are correct in your assessment that I think that making information more speedily available to users is the issue that is paramount here. In order of consideration the policies related to this BLP issue should answer two questions: 1)what's our ideal title from an informative point of view? (naming conventions, wikipedia's purpose etc) 2)what policies should we consider which might prevent use of that title? (NPOV, BLP etc). An assessment of policy in that order reveals no barrier to using the most informative title possible. I don't like your (presumably tongue in cheek) suggestion that we should use the policy to "IAR", to annoy the subject of the article, or the suggestion that this is what people are discreetly attempting to do. The fact that I came up with an argument you approve of, does not preclude the possibility that I may be radically opposed to the subject, and wish to harm his reputation, nor does the fact that you disagree with other arguments preclude the possibility that the editors who made them are acting in good faith. It is up to a closing editor to judge and it's probably better to focus on ensuring that our own arguments adhere to policy rather than calling those of others into question during the course of a survey. Edaham (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is already sufficiently disambiguated from the initialization of the middle name. Whether Richard Spencer is a white supremacist or a white nationalist is keenly disputed and the difference matters. If any change should happen at all and if people still see the title as ambiguous then Richard B. Spencer (Political Activist) should be considered. Otherwise any change would be taking a side on the debate as to which ideology he holds. BrookDaCow (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not keenly disputed. There is a settled consensus, determined by many discussions including RfC, that Spencer is both a white supremacist and a white nationalist, and that we should describe him as a white supremacist since that is the more specific term. And not only that but the sources don't support the 'activist' label. This has also already been addressed in prior discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support the current title is not his common name, given that most sources do not use the middle initial. Hence appeals to the examples of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush are misguided, for those are the common names of the two former Presidents. Given that this individual is well-known as a white supremacist, the parenthetical term is an appropriate one. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, but support move to Richard Spencer (with Richard Spencer to Richard Spencer (disambiguation)). Per others above, the insertion of "white supremacist" is a solution looking for a problem, and a bad solution. The present title is accurate, natural, found in sources, and most importantly, it maintains WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if there is a direct policy governing this, but WP:POVTITLE covers the main part of the article title, not the disambiguator. Putting a perjorative term like "white supremacist" in the parentheses makes it in Misplaced Pages's voice. We're saying that's what he is, with no nuance at all. That IMHO differs from what we choose to say about him in the lede, and we should be much more careful about being neutral, especially when perfectly good alternatives such as the present title are available. I personally despise what this guy stands for, and I wouldn't wish to grant him any favours, but we leave our personal opinions at the door when we are editing Misplaced Pages. Anyway, having said all that, I would be happy to just move him to the base title, Richard Spencer - he has 95% of the page views in the past 90 days, Only Richard V. Spencer gets anywhere near the hits, and I think it's fair to give this Richard the nod over the other one per common usage as well as significance and page views.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I have to point out - Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, as supported by a vast array of reliable sources. It's what he's known for. It's how he's described in the first sentence of the article. There's no difference between the placement of that sentence and the parentheses in the article title - if it's good enough for the former, it's good enough for the latter, and that's not what's under discussion here. Whether you find the term "pejorative" or not (totally subjective) is irrelevant. What's being discussed is whether there should be an initial in the article title or not. I see no policy-based argument in this vote as to why the initial should be included, just a subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion about the "white supremacist" parenthetical. Rockypedia (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist is clearly a perjorative, that's not just my opinion. And my point is not that he isn't one, simply that there is no need for us to be using it when we have a perfectly good WP:NATURALDIS alternative, which is used commonly in sources, per Station1's evidence above. The nomination rationale that the current title is made up by Misplaced Pages is untrue. Anyway, as ValarianB says below, you might want to consider the option of making him PTOPIC. That would make the disambiguator question irrelevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Clearly a pejorative"? based on what? Is white nationalist also clearly a pejorative? What are you basing that opinion on (yes, it's your opinion). And for the tenth time, even if it is a pejorative, so what? Where's the Misplaced Pages policy that states we should equivocate in the parenthetical description in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings? It's still a separate issue from the initial vs. no-initial discussion, so save it for the next move discussion, if this one happens. Rockypedia (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But, if he is deemed the most Richard Spencer-iest of all the Richard Spencers in history, wouldn't it make sense to just move him there? Look at the list at Richard Spencer...an unremarkable English nobleman, a 1-term US Congressman in 1830, the current SecNav, a sax player, a high jumper, and so on... A prominent white supremacist in 21st century America trumps (unintended pun) them easily. ValarianB (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See Necrothesp's note below on why he isn't the primary topic; I agree with those points. Rockypedia (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's called "ignorance". "I've never heard of him" is not a valid rebuttal to what is or is not a primary topic. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and for better or for worse it skews Ameri-centric. This particular Richard Spencer has more renown than anyone on that list, as supported by reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Or move to Richard Spencer (political activist) if "white supremacist" is rejected. We don't use initials as a disambiguator if they're not commonly used. This is not a new thing; it's been the case for many years and, contrary to claims above, it is generally enforced when spotted. As for being a primary topic, this chap may be big news in America at the moment (I assume, although the article isn't that long), but he's not well-known elsewhere. So no, no primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Richard Spencer (activist) instead. "Activist" is a more non-neutral term, and there are no other notable activists of the same name. ToThAc (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment for everyone worried about the "white supremacist" parenthetical (which has been debated on talk in regards to Spencer's primary descriptor in the lead and roundly endorsed by overwhelming consensus), I would direct your attention to Don Black, David Lane, James Ellison, Terry Long, etc. Rockypedia (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Identitarian movement template

I don't have time at the moment to discuss this at length, but I question whether the new {{Identitarian Movement}} template is beneficial to this article or to Misplaced Pages more generally. For starters, we do not have reliable sourcing that Spencer is an identitarian, just his own self-identification as an identitarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We had complaints and difficulty reaching any kind of consensus on the original alt-right template. The alt-right is more a broad coalition than anything else, and it seems weird to have Steve Bannon and Roy Moore next to the Daily Stormer. DrawingLol (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do we have to have one or the other? Why not neither? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

They've both been described as alt-right. Are you saying that we delete the page entirely? I think explaining that it is a broad coalition makes more sense. If you think that Steve Bannon or Andrew Anglin should not be included, you are free to start another section on it. DrawingLol (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm saying that we shouldn't include the {{Identitarian Movement}} template in Richard B. Spencer. I didn't say anything about deleting any pages, nor about Bannon or Anglin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I don't see the template on this page; or anything recent in the history. Has it been removed? I also concur that it's not due for inclusion here, nor Spencer for inclusion in the template; and have removed the latter accordingly. - Ryk72 06:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed other references to identitarianism as a movement/type/ideology - do check. Edaham (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's being added to identity Europa, please take a look cheers. Something wrong with my mobile edits today and I self reverted. I also don't like using this template. Using it seems like Misplaced Pages is buying into the promotional terms used to schill buffed up racism. Identarianism for example is simply a redirect to white supremacy. additional - see this template's entry at TFD Edaham (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

University of Ohio

There is no such institution as the "University of Ohio." This text is linked to "Ohio University" (Athens, Ohio). However, it is The Ohio State University (Big 10 university in Columbus, Ohio) that is being sued. The editors should correct the text and the link.

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2017

It has been proposed in this section that Richard B. Spencer be renamed and moved to Richard Spencer. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer – Per WP:INITS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as suggested by Station1 in the discussion above. The 5-year Google Trends timeline strongly suggests that an overwhelming number of readers are looking for information about this Richard Spencer, who is identified by the vast majority of reliable sources without his middle initial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: This proposal necessarily involves moving the disambiguation page currently at Richard Spencer to Richard Spencer (disambiguation), in order to make way for the move of this page. The precise wording of the hatnote on this page can be resolved in a subsequent discussion if necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per my vote in the previous move discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support also per my vote in the last discussion. With 95% of the views, and the only other serious contender being the Secretary of the Navy (a cabinet position but not a major one), I think it's fair to say this is the primary topic by common usage, and the one readers are most likely to be seeking.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea, as it addresses the obscure middle initial argument. This Richard Spencer is far and away the primary topic, after reviewing the list that is currently at Richard Spencer. TheValeyard (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Drama-free solution and Fleischmann makes an excellent point.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, along with the standard disambig notice pointing to the Navy Secretary and to the other uses. Seems almost obvious, in retrospect. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Apart from the Royalist MP, Richard Spencer (died 1661), there is the English parliamentarian and envoy Richard Spencer (1553-1624), both members of the same preeminent Spencer family as Winston Spencer Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales. (On wikipedia he is listed as the fourth son of Sir John Spencer.) Both Spencers played a role in Tudor and Stuart history. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Richard V. Spencer is clearly less-known , but should be in the hat-note due to his current position. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support With the earlier proposal having unfortunately failed this seems to be the second-best option. This Richard Spencer is clearly the primary topic, taking into account pageviews and usage in reliable sources. The Royalist MP does not seem to be of significant historical significance on the basis of his article. The current disambiguation makes it confusing for readers who would not necessarily know his middle initial. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. 95% of the page views is a clear indication that this is the primary topic and the one readers are looking for. Given that he's much more widely known as "Richard Spencer" than "Richard B. Spencer", the move makes sense. Richard Spencer (white supremacist) or Richard Spencer (white nationalist) would also be good titles.--Cúchullain /c 13:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.- MrX 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a better alternative to a less-than-ideal parenthetical. ValarianB (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sources commonly use his middle initial, so there's no need for this primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Several of the other Richard Spencers (e.g., the sea captain, the Royalist MP and the current Navy Secretary) have more long-term notability. —  AjaxSmack  03:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support While I would prefer leaving the page where it is, there seems to be some consensus to move it elsewhere. This seems like the best of all the available options for a move. The Wordsmith 17:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even though giving everyone a parenthetical would solve both the initial problem that INITS corrects and serve as cause to get rid of plenty of the reams of mostly useless disambiguation pages. Anyone looking for the Secretary of the Navy or the vicar or the guys in the Royal Family isn't going to get the sort of help that would come with "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)" and "Richard Spencer (vicar)" and so on but per User:Station1, hardly anybody is going to those articles anyway. CityOfSilver 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The New York Times and other publications commonly use his middle initial. Example 1 ("WASHINGTON — An anti-immigrant group led by the white nationalist Richard B. Spencer was told..."); Example 2 ("GAINESVILLE, Fla. — The president of the University of Florida said white supremacist Richard B. Spencer wants the speech he will deliver Thursday to spark violence..."). Neutrality 22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, you are actually mistaken here. Google News currently shows 1,670 NY Times stories for "Richard Spencer" and only 28 NY Times stories for "Richard B. Spencer". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll change my vote to neutral on this basis. Neutrality 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose based on WP:RECENTISM. 18 months ago, barely anyone outside of Stormfront knew he existed. His recent new-found fame is almost entirely a function of the 2016 US presidential election. That, in my opinion, does not qualify him to be the primary topic, regardless of how many thousands of recent articles about him have been written. They're all from 2015 onward, and he could easily be receiving less coverage than the other living Richard Spencer on the disambiguation page in 4 years. We just don't know. Rockypedia (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcers

What sources does Misplaced Pages have for him being a white supremacist. Is Misplaced Pages accepting the notion that nationalism is racism? Would Malcom X be a Black Supremacist for being a Black Separatist/Nationalist. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(a) Redacting an ill-judged example that's many would consider anti-Semitic. (b) The sources are listed throughout the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you see how when you float your mouse over the little "" following "white supremacist" in the first sentence a whole bunch of sources come up? There's your answer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class Montana articles
• Low-importance Montana articles
• WikiProject Montana articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Massachusetts articles
• Unknown-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• C-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages at move review
• Requested moves