Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 10 December 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: 30 days

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: 30 days

Requested move 2 November 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for the proposed move. Although there is a numerical majority in favor of moving the page, it is underwhelming. A stronger consensus should be formed before dislocating a longstanding disambiguation page in favor of a proposed primary topic. However, even some opposed to usurping the disambiguation page appear favorable to a title with a parenthetical disambiguator over an unused middle initial, so it seems likely that a straight proposal to move the page to Richard Spencer (activist) would succeed. bd2412 T 18:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer
• Richard Spencer → Richard Spencer (disambiguation)

– 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) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 13 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)

Comment: I have updated the move request to reflect the aforementioned point. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 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)

• If that happens, the issue can be revisited in four years, since consensus CAN change. --Calton | Talk 03:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM exists, at least in part, so that we don't have to constantly revisit every contentious topic. Rockypedia (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that you're misapplying WP:RECENTISM , with a helping of WP:CRYSTAL ("...he could easily be receiving less coverage") to boot. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comment in the previous RM. WP:RECENTISM. Even then, not well-known outside America. Not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• The comment above 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 seems to indicate that this is, in fact, the primary topic, whether or not he is "widely known" outside of the U.S. --Calton | Talk 03:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If anything, that link actually bolsters the argument that WP:RECENTISM applies here and and as such, he's not the primary topic. Note that the first spike in searches was 20 Nov 2016, less than a year ago. We're talking about Richard Spencers on the disambig page that go back hundreds of years, and you want to assign a primary topic in a worldwide encyclopedia based on the fleeting fame of one American? How does that make any sense? Rockypedia (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually READ WP:RECENTISM? It talks about "news spikes" and and how things could be forgotten in a month's time: over two years is NOT "recentism" by any reasonable reading of that essay. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking. The same supplement also talks about the "ten-year" test, but you conveniently didn't see that, I guess. The salient point remains the same: we're talking about a guy that became famous over the last year (not two!), and other Richard Spencers have been around for hundreds. Rockypedia (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, I think you're overlooking a key aspect of the Google Trends graph. Don't just look at how it spikes when Richard B. Spencer started making the news last fall. Look at how minuscule and flat the interest in other Richard Spencers was before then--hovering in the 0%-1% range. (You can download the csv file to get the numbers.) Do you really think that the interest in Richard B. Spencer will be that low in 10 years time, even if he were to magically disappear tomorrow? That seems extremely unlikely. The guy is going to be in history books on modern American history as probably the most prominent figure in the alt-right phenomenon, especially after Charlottesville. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually think there's a great chance that he'll be that low in 10 years' time, yes. But what you and I predict on that point is just a prediction; I don't think it's a good idea to call someone a primary topic after just a year in the limelight, regardless of what we see in our respective WP:CRYSTAL balls. Rockypedia (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

also talks about the "ten-year" test NOW who's conveniently cherrypicking? The "ten-year test" has fuck-all to do with whether ten years have past, and your projection is -- ONCE AGAIN -- WP:CRYSTAL opinion. The actual point of RECENTISM regarding notability is about flash-in-the-pan stories -- remember the "month's time" thing, or did YOU conveniently forget that? -- and a constant one year or two years is not that by any stretch of the imagination. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your caps-lock key appears to be malfunctioning. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). This is clearly a bio which fails the first criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is WP:RECENT. This particular individual is not more notable than all Richard Spencers in history combined. A cursory search in Google Books barely shows him peeking out among many others. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for a multitude of reasons:
  • WP:RECENTISM, since this Richard Spencer has only been notable for very little time compared to other Richard Spencers of the past;
  • WP:WORLDWIDE - due to the notable British Richard Spencer (MP) and Richard Spencer (Royal Navy officer);
  • And ethics in general. Personally I am against giving this guy more fame than he's already getting.
  • As an alternative, I suggest moving his page to Richard Spencer (activist). (WP:NPOV is stopping me from suggesting Richard Spencer (Nazi).) Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • ...has only been notable for very little time compared to other Richard Spencers of the past Is there a relative-time-scale test that I missed? Did you have a percentage we could work with here?
    • I am against giving this guy more fame than he's already getting You're going to have to explain how changing the article name is going to do that, or why it's Misplaced Pages's role in the first place (even assuming Misplaced Pages had that power). --Calton | Talk 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —Michipedian (talk) 05:15, 25 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

White Supremacist

It seems that according to the definition of "white supremacist" on Misplaced Pages's own page, a person should have to declare themselves a white supremacist in order to be labeled as such. Otherwise we are inferring something about their beliefs that contradicts their own statement of their belief. It could be that he is in fact a white supremacist, but usually encyclopedias do not take the liberty of inferring what people believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and we have already discussed this countless times. Spencer is a white supremacist according to the standards used by Misplaced Pages. Review this talk page and its archives for details. Grayfell (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: is wholly correct. The term is well documented in WP:RS and third party sources (such as neutral newspapers) are a reliable benchmark for addition to Category:American white supremacists In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What are "neutral" newspapers? Just because terminology appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.20.245 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2017

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) James (/_contribs) 00:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (activist) – Three key reasons below:

• WP:COMMONNAME: Most news coverage of Spencer omits the middle initial. Examples: The Atlantic , CNN , and Associated Press

• WP:SELFIDENTITY: Spencer's own Hatreon page uses "Richard Spencer" (archive.is link follows)

• WP:WORLDWIDE/WP:RECENTISM: When looking at the Richard Spencer disambiguation page against worldwide history, there is no primarily notable Richard Spencer.

And a relevant comment after the closing of the last, unsuccessful move attempt to make this page the primary Richard Spencer topic from BD2412: "... even some opposed to usurping the disambiguation page appear favorable to a title with a parenthetical disambiguator over an unused middle initial, so it seems likely that a straight proposal to move the page to Richard Spencer (activist) would succeed." Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. This is a non-starter. The issue of whether whether Spencer can be neutrally described as an activist has already been extensively discussed and rejected. Take for instance 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) 00:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Plain Richard Spencer or bust, that is the common name that is perfectly acceptable thus negating any need for parenthesis descriptors. The arguments that the other Spencers are even remotely on par with this one were laughably daft. This Spencer is the notable and primary one. TheValeyard (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That has already been rejected, we are now on second option, finding a workable (disambiguator). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that's too bad. If we can't just use his plain name and bump the historical nobodies off the list, then we'll stick with the middle initial. TheValeyard (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Perspective please, see WP:RECENT. For an encyclopedia time will prove that it is the white supremacist who is the "historical nobody". After his five minutes of notoriety he'll be forgotten in five years. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No way in hell, this is the worst of the moves proposed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support good proposal and logical outcome of above RM from a Misplaced Pages WP:TITLE perspective. Editor Dr Fleischman can I say you seem to have unrealistically high expectations of disambiguators on Misplaced Pages. The purpose is only WP:DISAMBIGUATION and from neutral sources cannot see any problem with the description (activist). Richard Spencer (alt-right writer) per category on footer would also be okay. Add note that Richard Spencer (white supremacist) would be a personal preference, but would have to be well sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support a neutral and straight-forward resolution to the naming issue. Maybe a little horn-tooting, but I believe I was the first to bring up the (activist) possibility. :) ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral? Are you kidding me? This is whitewashing at its worst. This is the title that Spencer himself and his white supremacist followers would prefer. No, Spencer is notable for the one thing and one thing only - that's being a white supremacist. Not being an "activist", which presents a false equivalence and runs contrary to the first line of the lead besides. I'd support Richard Spencer (white supremacist) over this. That's 100% honest, at least. Rockypedia (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- he is not known for being an activist, a statement rooted in a consideration of the reliable sources used to support the article text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The use of an anodyne euphemism to describe the most notorious American white supremacist of the 21st century cannot be allowed to happen, nor is it compliant with our basic content policies. We are required to reflect what mainstream reliable sources say about someone, and mainstream reliable sources describe him primarily as a white supremacist, because that is what he is notable for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately Misplaced Pages (disambiguators) are quite often anodyne. Dealing with individuals in the Baked Alaska (alt-right writer) category can be problematic. That particular individual should really be under (troll) but is now sitting ridiculously at (entertainer) while editors chew over the same sort of disambiguation problem as here. I personally would have originally supported (white supremacist) for Richard Spencer, but that move has just failed, we are now onto the second discussion and sources for "activist" do exist, dislike it or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Then the article shouldn't be moved. No descriptor at all is preferable to an entirely anodyne one which essentially whitewashes his extremist racist beliefs. It would be like having an article on Adolf Hitler (politician). While essentially true, it is a lie by omission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although subject has been frequently referenced without the "B.", middle initials are usually omitted in mentions of individuals who use them, other than for specialized exceptions, such as stage names. In this case, "Richard B. Spencer" is subject's pen name. Similar consensus is also difficult to obtain for concurrent RM Jim L. Mora → Jim Mora (American football, born 1961) and Jim E. Mora → Jim Mora (American football, born 1935). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "activist" is not the best description if we need disambiguation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- "activist" is not supported by the preponderance of sources and per CNN quote provided by DrFleischman, which is quite compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - So many problems with this, some of which have already been raised. Is he even in Category:Activists? "Activist" is almost meaningless other than as a peacock term. It says too little about who he is or why he is notable, but it sounds vaguely impressive. Half the other people listed at Richard Spencer could be plausibly be described as engaging in activism, so who is saying this is a defining trait, and why? Don't kid yourself into thinking that softening the language is the appropriate or mature response. It isn't. We are not obligated to meet Spencer half-way to help him with his PR problems. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "Activist" is probably one of the biggest euphemisms I've ever seen for his job description. I would support (white supremacist) as a far more accurate descriptor which has also been mentioned above._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal per above opposes. Activist seems to suffer from the same neutrality concerns as white supremacist. Also oppose "(white supremacist)" per my earlier !vote in the previous discussion. I supported the primary topic suggestion, but that didn't go through so that's where we're at. Other than that, we seem to be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Richard B. Spencer is a neutral, natural title, it's used in sources, even if it's not actually the most common name, and it precisely identifies the target. Let's move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the usual tentative, kid gloves, pussyfooting, gazing at the navels of various irrelevant applications of policies and arriving at a vague disambiguation method, which in the search bar or via DAB page, will make those aware of the subject's existence as well as those not aware, more not less confused about the article to which they are being directed. At some point in this survey we have to address the fact that we are an encyclopedia and this subject is a white supremacist. What we should be asking is: is there a relevant reason not to disambiguate him as (White Supremacist) in order to make the encyclopedia article about him better and more informative. To date, reliable sources are literally strewn with references supporting this word for disambiguation. This (and the shower of surveys like it in recent months) are DUE meets FALSEBALLANCE meets NEUTRALITY gone wrong, and have led to nothing but ambiguity and loopholes whereby IP users and partisan editorship can march along and waste countless project hours by rehashing and re-airing NPOV and LIBEL issues in the face of hoards of support for a clear term for this subjects activities and positions. Edaham (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Question: I'm opposed to this guy's belief system as much as any sane (i.e. not an alt-right adherent) person is, but I'm not sure I get the "he's not an activist" opposition. Isn't being a leading voice everywhere he shows up, from CPAC to Charlottesville, for his white supremacy an inherently "activist" position? ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Then go back through the archived discussions, which have squarely addressed your question. The simple answer is that the sources do not call him an activist. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's about the level of hackneyed dodging I expected. "Activist" is a simple term to describe an advocate of a cause, it is not a proper title that should need a source. I find more and more around here that the "citation needed" made famous in xkcd is used alternatively as club or shield as needed by the attacker or deflector, respectively, rather than as a genuine inquiry for more information to be provided. ValarianB (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good job personalizing the dispute and trying to turn it into something it's not. It's actually possible to disagree with a position without disparaging it and the people who hold it, you know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been personalized from the get-go by those pushing for a parenthetical "white supremacist", or worse, when there are perfectly WP:NPOV-acceptable terms to choose from. ValarianB (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"White supremacist" is the NPOV term to describe Spencer. It's thoroughly documented in reliable sources. Please stop suggesting that describing someone as reliable sources do is in some way a violation of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In fairness I don't think ValarianB is saying it's a violation of policy. I think they're saying that it's really, really bad, so bad that anyone who prefers this parenthetical (despite it being extremely well sourced) must be a POV-pushing, personalizing, hackneyed dodger. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. I see people cite WP:OTHERSTUFF in times like this, but I feel this may be a valid opportunity to raise a point about another article. Osama bin Laden doesn't lead with "Osama bin Laden is a terrorist...", why is that? It takes until the end of the 2nd lead paragraph to even mention the word terror, and that is in he context of being listed by the FBI as such, "X is a Y" never comes in to play. I don't know why we're so hellbent on making "white supremacist" as loud and as prominent as possible in this article. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pretty simple, really: because that's what Spencer is known for. But instead of acknowledging that editors you disagree with are trying to uphold their understanding of community standards, just as you are, you dismiss the lot as POV-pushing, personalizing, hackneyed dodgers. That's contrary to a host of other community standards, as well as being just plain not cool. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of fostering cooperation I am willing to strike the "hackneyed" line above. So to the point, bin Laden is primarily known for being a terrorist, yet that's not how his article is written, was the point. You know Spencer is a white supremacist, I know he's white supremacist, that's not the issue. I'm just seeing a bit of a problem with moving an article title to Richard Spencer (white supremacist)), as the community standards of NPOV don't seem to support that sort of thing. I'm not yet as experienced as you all in finding the arcane WP:... policy and guide pages, but in reading some Category discussions awhile ago I came across WP:OPINIONCAT. I'm wondering why it's not OK to categorise by opinion but it is OK to title by opinion. Regardless, if this ends up being what the article is moved to, I'm not going to fight over it or edit-war or anything like that of course, but I think it's something to talk about. I'd feel the same if there was a party on the far left that needed to have a title disambiguated, and the suggestion was John Doe (antifa). ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB, please explain, with some logic and research (not personal opinion), why you think "white supremacist" is POV. Rockypedia (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rocky, those who pose such an absurd question pretty much invalidate themselves from this discussion, so i really see little value in continuing a tangent with you. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you got nothin'. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As User:In ictu oculi notes above, the purpose of a parenthetical disambiguator is to disambiguate the title from other Richard Spencers, not to show support or opposition for the subject's beliefs. "Activist" does a reasonably good job at that but could be a bit misleading as activists tend to have more traditional left-wing causes. "White supremacist" is probably even clearer and is supported by sources but is rejected by Spencer himself, bringing up WP:BLP issues. "White nationalist" is another option but is less common in sources. —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP does not prohibit labeling spades as spades when that can be supported by reliable sources. I am as much of a BLP stickler as anyone, but what it requires is that we treat subjects sensitively (particularly those unwillingly thrust into a spotlight) and use only high-quality reliable sources when making sensitive or derogatory statements. There are a bazillion reliable sources in this case, and as Spencer is literally and willingly the most notable and notorious American white supremacist of the 21st century, I simply can't see any BLP issues here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• In ictu oculi, you have now said repeatedly that "activist" is reliably sourced, but I have yet to find any such sources. Please help. I will also note that the reason I mentioned the CNN source so prominently in my !vote is because it says that Spencer shouldn't be described as an activist. Even if we had a few sources describing him as an activist, they'd still be in a tiny minority, and we'd still have this conflicting source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said I would prefer (white supremacist) according to the Guardian, etc., but " leading alt-right activist Richard Spencer." does exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

bd2412, I believe you misread consensus when you closed the other move discussion to simply Richard Spencer - You stated that a move proposal to a parenthesised 'activist' was likely to succeed, but this is worse than the other two other failed move proposals and has seen less support so far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think bd2412 misread anything or did anything wrong. If you look at the move request in a vacuum (without looking at prior discussions) you'd have no idea how much opposition there was to the "activist" label. And I don't think bd2412 had any obligation to go back through those prior discussions. But their closing comment did cause me to laugh out loud. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would predict that it's evident now that another 3rd RM is coming in a weeks time to attempt Richard Spencer (white supremacist). Editors who are likely to support that might want to prepare their sources so that that one will actually fly, because after having tried the above RM1 and RM2 (activist), any 4th RM is likely to be placed under moratorium for 6 months till May 2018. Just speaking from a bit of observation about how RM works... In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We've actually already tried (White Supremacist)- it was the first suggestions. The closer, of course, said that a move to just Richard Spencer would surely work. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive_1#Proposed_move:_Richard_Spencer_(white_supremacist). A shame that wasn't done using a RM template to attract wider input. Would (white supremacist) now get more support than (activist)? Yes no answer from someone please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It probably has more support than the current proposal, judging by the !votes in each of the two discussions. That doesn't mean it has enough support for consensus though. The above discussion was closed as "no consensus", and it was advertised as a proper RM - although it started out as an ordinary discussion, the RM templates were added two days in, and it then saw a full listing on the RM page. The current title, which is the long-term stable one, seems to do the job well enough - it's certainly used in plenty of sources, satisfies WP:NATURALDIS, and also avoids any arguments about what the disambiguator actually should be. Personally I think it's time to stop trying to rename this, accept the current name, and just move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we have an RfC with multiple choices? Perhaps even rank 1st, 2nd, etc...preferences? It would be a bit more complicated for the closers to tabulate consensus rather than a strict support/oppose, but it may be fairer in the long run. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to ValarianB's suggestion here, but honestly I'm pessimistic it will work, so I'm not interested in participating beyond casting my !vote. The RfC would have to be drafted very carefully to capture any consensus that might emerge, otherwise it'd be just a waste of time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"white supremacist" This is just a propaganda term. He should be called identitarian, or nationalist, or maybe separatist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.20.245 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

White supremacists don't get to be described by their self-coined neologisms, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I will chime in now and say go for previous precedent in Don Black (white supremacist) and James Ellison (white supremacist). From these article titles and the discussion here, I would support moving the page to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:42, 4 December 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.

Requested move 8 December 2017

It has been proposed in this section that Richard B. Spencer be renamed and moved to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). 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 (white supremacist) – Per WP:INITS and previous discussion, Richard B. Spencer is unnacceptable according to established Misplaced Pages policy, as the subject is rarely referred to with a middle initial. A parenthetical is the next obvious choice, and "white supremacist" is entire reason the subject has a Misplaced Pages article in the first place, it is how he is described in the first sentence of the article, on the Richard Spencer disambiguation page, it is well sourced, and was the topic of an exhaustive RfC in which overwhelming consensus agreed that the primary descriptor should be "white supremacist." Rockypedia (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of the move request of 26 October 2017, in which Rockypedia significantly participated, which was closed as no consensus with a detailed rationale, and which survived a move review here. The original discussion is at Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4#Requested move 26 October 2017. - Station1 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Support votes

• Support -- we've established that it's the core component of his notability, that it's the way to refer to him in the first sentence, etc. Having overcome all the objections to those elements, we should similarly get beyond the same objections in connection with the article name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Fourth times the charm. Per anything I may or may not have said in the past move discussions - sources are reliable, consensus among them overwhelming, white supremacist not a contentious term for the person, etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The article title, when using a parenthetical, should reflect the content of the article. Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist, first and foremost. That was decided in the exhaustive RfC about the first line in the article and it was decided by overwhelming consensus. The fact that some editors are squeamish about putting the exact same phrase in the article title should have no bearing on the final decision. This is a policy decision, plain and simple. If it's good enough for the lead sentence, it's good enough for the title. There are other articles already using the same parenthetical:

1. Don Black (white supremacist)
2. James Ellison (white supremacist)
3. Paul Fromm (white supremacist)
4. David Lane (white supremacist)
5. Terry Long (white supremacist)

so it's not like we're breaking new ground here. Rockypedia (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support The media generally does not use "B. Spencer" in their coverage, and has overwhelmingly referred to him as a white supremacist, which is what he is primarily known for by the public at large. There is nothing unclear or biased about using that phrase as a disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support would prefer just plain Richard Spencer, as this one is far more notable than the gaggle of historical cruft currently at the disambiguation page, but if we have to move it then this is the most obvious choice. #1, we have 5 examples above where this is used as a disambiguator, so the clams of BLP violations and NPOV are debunked, you can't WP:CRYBLP when it has been used already that often. #2, leopards may at times change their spots, but the memory of those spots is long. A virulent, violent race agitator may some day come to his senses, but the notoriety of who he was and what he stood for that made him so notable will never be erased from history. "Richard Spencer, the white supremacist" is how he will be remembered, forever. #3, the "B" is used in sources far, far less than the plain firstname lastname, a fact easily sown by Google. Finally, as the last RM on this particular suggestion closed as "no consensus", it is never "too soon" to try again; that is the very nature of "no consensus". TheValeyard (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: We're subject to constant efforts by apologists and extremists to rebrand the subject as anything other than what he is. The right and encyclopedic solution is to describe him clearly, accurately, and succinctly. He’s only notable as a white supremacist. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

• Oppose As stated in the earlier discussions, I do not feel that choosing a title based on a person's belief system (fully aware that there are some titles that currently do this; another wrong doesn't make a right) is in the spirit of neutrality, nor is it necessary when the project can use the middle initial, despite its imperfectness. He is a white supremacist with horrid views who deserves all the scorn he gets (why isn't Nazi punching an article?), but I would have preferred to see an RfC where we could choose among the possibilities and rank 1st, 2nd, etc...choice. These "one choice in rapid succession" discussions seems designed to bring about weariness rather than consensus. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Did we not have a similar discussion before? I can't find the archive. Anyway, he is often described as a "white nationalist" in reliable third-party sources, and he may change his mind/politics at some point. If this goes though, he may use this as a fundraising opportunity, portraying himself as a victim (sic), and I don't think he needs more money--so let's not play into his own hands.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a suitable disambiguator here, we don't need to use a less-neutral one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. This exact same move was proposed less than two months ago, it was debated at length and closed as no consensus, and subsequently it passed a move review. You can't just keep proposing the same thing over and over until you get the result you want. Please could an admin close this and maybe impose a moratorium. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  If it was "no consensus", it's not inappropriate to open a new request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close. While I believe the article should be moved as proposed, I agree with Amakuru and think this request comes too soon on the heels of the last one. Nothing has changed since then and there is zero chance we'll reach a consensus to move, so we shouldn't waste everyone's time. Again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  So you support this proposal based on its merits, but oppose it based on its timing? Bradv 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a fair summary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – we don't usually use someones belief system as a disambiguator, especially when there are other disambiguation choices available. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I stand corrected, there are many other articles that do use the disambiguation white supremacist. However, Richard B. Spencer does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME as he is not known with his middle initial, so a new title should be decided with disambiguation. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

    His middle initial has been used by The NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, MSN, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, The Chicago Tribune, and Getty Images, among others, as pointed out in the previous discussion. Station1 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - clear violation of WP:BLP which leaves Misplaced Pages open to ridicule. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parenthetical qualifiers are warranted only when subjects, who have common names, are not known for using middle names, middle initials or nicknames, such as the five men exemplified above with the qualifier "(white supremacist)". In the case at hand, "Richard B. Spencer" is subject's pen name and his books and other writings are all published under the name with the middle initial "B." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This keeps popping up at WP:RM. Stop it already. Amakuru and DrFleischman are correct: it is simply disruptive now. Srnec (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A decision was already reached a mere month ago. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the discussion was closed without consensus, so no decision was reached a month ago. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Zigzig20s' "strong oppose" vote reminds me of a clip from A Few Good Men. Anyway, regarding the actual content of that vote, "he is often described as a "white nationalist" was raised in the exhaustive RfC, and consensus determined that "white supremacist" was more accurate than "white nationalist", so that issue was already settled. As for "he may use this as a fundraising opportunity", I can't recall a single Misplaced Pages issue being decided based on what the article's subject would do financially as a result of the discussion, and so I don't think that vote presents a single valid argument to back itself up. Rockypedia (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually came to this talk page by accident (I was just reading the article when I thought that maybe I should check the talk page the huge toolbar was referring to) but just from what you wrote here I feel like you are a bit too (politically) charged to be able to discuss this properly. From what I gathered after reading the talk page for 3 minutes the oppose side has a lot more arguments than you've described in the post above. I think you should take a break to cool your head, but that's just my opinion, man. P.S. I oppose the renaming based on the fact that we already have a suitable disambiguator and the one you propose does not appear to sound neutral at all. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There were an extensive RfC about the term "white supremacist" and whether or not it's neutral, and the overwhelming consensus was that it is neutral and well-sourced, so I don't see how your last point can be considered to be based in reality. Also, there's five other articles that use that particular disambiguator, so why should Spencer's article be the one exception? Rockypedia (talk) 06:57, 10 December 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
• Requested moves