Jump to content

Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Survey of Sources

A survey a sources is the the best way to resolve the question of how Taylor is characterized. Consensus favors an overall survey, rather than the limited survey of existing citations I performed earlier. I've performed that, incorporating sources listed by Volunteer Marek and Zaostao, eliminating opinion pieces, and adding sources (such as The New Yorker and NY Times.) Sources are categorized by their characterization of Taylor as: white nationalist; white supremacist; and associated with white supremacists or white supremacist organizations. There may be errors in my research or good-qualify sources I neglected to include, so I encourage others to add to and correct (if necessary.) As it stands, sources favor white nationalist 4:1 over white supremacist.

Source Link White Nationalist White Supremacist Associated with White Supremacy
TIME [1] ●
CNN [2] ●
The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Harvard University Press) ●
Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History ●
Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America ●
Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream. ●
Washington Post [3] ● ● (Supremacist appears in the 5th paragraph while the lede describes him as a "white nationalist." This mirrors the structure of Zaostao's proposed lede.)
WSJ [4]
SPLC [5] ● ●


Washington Post [6] ●
The New Yorker [7] ●
The New York Times [8] ●
The Wall St Journal [9] ●
Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male ●
Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right ●
Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes] ●
White Robes and Burning Crosses: A History of the Ku Klux Klan from 1866 ●
King's Dream: The Legacy of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Speech ●
Facing Terror: The Government's Response to Contemporary Extremists in America ●
Beyond Hate: White Power and Popular Culture ●
Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction ● ●
Issues in Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Selections from The CQ Researcher ●
The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration ●
NY Times [10] ●
SF Gate [11] ●


TOTAL: 15 5 7

James J. Lambden (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, this table is further evidence that the lead sentence should be edited as such: "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication." Rockypedia (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Another huge table? I don't accept that this is the best way to resolve this question, and phrasing it like that is loaded and presumptuous. This looks superficially impressive and takes up a lot of space, but arranging nuanced information like this destroys context. Additionally, it assumes that white supremacist and white nationalist are mutually exclusive, which is totally absurd, as they are used interchangeably. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe white supremacist and white nationalist are mutually exclusive, and the table does not imply it. If both are used by a source both columns can be marked. If as you argue the two terms are equivalent, we're better off using the one most used by sources. If on the other hand they're not, it's imperative we use the one most used by sources. Either way, it's important to determine which term is most used by sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't accept that they're different enough to bother, as I've already explained, but if that were true, why not just use both? That's what I mean when I say the table assumes they are mutually exclusive. The table only makes sense to contrast the two, but they are fundamentally non-contrasting terms. They are so closely intertwined that (agree or not) most sources use them interchangeably. If that wasn't your intention, then you could add a column for any adjective you want, but that wouldn't prove anything, and wouldn't tell us anything about how to construct the article. Trying to contrast these two terms is false balance in service of a euphemism. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not necessary that you accept it. The terms used in our articles by policy reflect their use in reliable sources, especially in a BLP and especially with a label that implies racism. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, that's why we should use both terms in the lead sentence, as per my proposal above. An acceptable alternative is to leave it as is, since the two terms have so much overlap, and the second term is already used to describe what basically amounts to Taylor's personal blog, American Renaissance. Rockypedia (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, first, your table's just wrong. You seem to incorrectly place several sources. I also don't see why you omit some others. This appears to be an attempt at manipulating the information. Second, I agree with Rocky and others that we can always just use both terms. Third, I thought most of the dispute was whether we describe *American Renaissance* as white supremacist. The fact that Taylor is one is non-controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC) One example of manipulation: The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea. You list it as referring to Taylor as "white nationalist". Actually it more or less calls him a neo-Nazi, and a racist. I guess we could use those two terms too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at BLPN (which I hope you'll review) focused on whether "white supremacist" should be featured prominently in the lede of Taylor's article. Most who felt it shouldn't felt "white nationalist" was appropriate, so I compared these two most advocated terms to gauge support in sources. "Racist" should be avoided (see WP:LABEL.) The American Renaissance article is outside the scope of the discussion.
The example you give is incorrect - you say it lists [The Myth of Race] as referring to Taylor as "white nationalist" but it doesn't - it's listed as Associated with White Supremacy since the text neither refers to him as a white nationalist nor white supremacist. You say several sources are incorrectly listed so I assume you have other examples. If they're valid please make the corrections (as I invited all editors to do when I posted the table) but please be more careful. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the canvassed discussion at BLPN which I already pointed out wasn't representative as most editors who have expressed an opinion here were not notified. You're of course welcome to try BLPN again.
Please actually read WP:LABEL. It says "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is the case here.
Not clear on then why you are splitting sources which mention white supremacist beliefs into two category, making it look like each one has less frequency than white nationalist. This is a pretty transparent attempt at making it look like "white nationalist" is used more often when in fact it's not. I listed and linked 9 sources. You're pretending it's 4.
You can put false information into a table format, but that doesn't magically turn it true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There's also a qualitative difference between academic and scholarly sources and newspaper articles. I haven't even checked the later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not helpful to respond to requests for specifics with generalities. I excluded a number of sources based on qualifications outlined in WP:IRS. If you feel high quality sources have been excluded, include them. If you feel "racist" is appropriate, add the column. Every one of your criticisms can be addressed entirely by you, in a more productive manner.
And as I said in response to your earlier accusation: the BLPN notice was posted here, to this talk page and repeated in a section heading by editor Masem. Claiming that constitutes "canvassing" or substandard notification is untrue and repeating it (as you've done here) will not make it true. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's another example. You list "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" under both white nationalism and ... "Associated with White Supremacy". The actual text is ""The New Century Foundation (publishers of American Renaissance) is a white supremacist group led by Jared Taylor"". So what you're saying is that a guy who RUNS a "white supremacist group" is not actually a white supremacist, only "associated with white supremacy"? Gimme a break. At the same time you fail to mention the fact that the same source does not actually call Taylor a "white nationalist" but only says he has ties to "white nationalism". You are manipulating information and hoping that we're too stupid to notice or too lazy to check.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That's incorrect. I base the "white nationalism" mark on the following sentence in the text: "Proponents of neo-Confederacy also overlap with those advocating a racial, white nationalism, such as Jared Taylor." What you call the "actual text" is in a footnote, although I agree it's valid, so I've added it. I've asked repeatedly that others review and correct where necessary as you've done here; I'll ask only once that you cease speculating about my motivations. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
To reiterate the point I have made towards this at BLPN - no one questions that we can call Taylor a white supremacist somewhere in the lede and the article; there's a bazillion sources to justify the use of the label. But to start the very first sentence of a BLP by calling them out on that label and putting any other more neutral/objective aspects first is not dispassionate writing demanded by BLP. It doesn't matter if all the sources in the world, excluding himself, make the statement, its simply not how we start articles on living persons to throw a subjective term in the first sentence. The first sentence of nearly every BLP and biography that has passed GA and FA starts with a sentence or two of non-contentious, neutral facts like nationality and profession(s) and any major works they are associated with, and then moves into the subjective aspects, whether those are positive or negative. We're an encyclopedia, not a political blog, and this race to call Taylor out on his political beliefs is very much not impartial writing. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
But again, being a white supremacist is exactly what he is notable for. If he wasn't a white supremacist, we wouldn't have an article on him. So it not just makes sense to put it in the first sentence, it's pretty much required.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently not according to reliable sources - see the table above. It's clear some editors are fixed in their positions. Once everyone's had time to review the survey I'll open an RfC. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've already pointed out several problems with your table repeatedly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've addressed or corrected the issues you mentioned. If problems still exist, once again I encourage you to correct them: add sources, add columns, correct inaccuracies. You seem to be trapped in this cycle of [claiming there are problems with the survey], being told [you're free to correct any problems], then, instead of correcting anything, [claiming (again) there are problems with the survey]. Break the cycle, I believe in you! The survey should be as accurate as possible before the RfC. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement in policy that demands putting what a person is notable for in the lede sentence. Somewhere in the lede, yes, and probably in the first paragraph of the lede. But throwing a subjective label without attribution in the first sentence of the lede, particularly when the person has actively denied that label, is forcing a passionate tone into the article which NPOV and BLP state we can't do; there's nuances to using the label (within policy's allowance of course) that need more than one sentence to establish. Pushing the white nationalist/white supremacist angle as the first thing the reader reads impacts the perceived tone of the article that you can't recover from. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement in policy that demands putting what a person is notable for in the lede sentence. - maybe, maybe not, but it sure as hell makes a lot of sense to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Again, I will stress how past GA/FA articles on BLP/bios are generally written that it usually takes two or three sentences to actually understand why a person was notable as the first sentence is a factual, objective statement of whom a person is/was in terms of nationality and occupation. The second and subsequent sentence give why that person is notable - what exactly they are/were known for, their importance towards the world at large, etc. "White supremacist" nor "white nationalist" is not a profession, it's a political/cultural stance, so it makes sense to hold off until one has established at least one objective statement to introduce the reader to what Taylor does before going into the aspects around his opinions which is what makes him notable. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no requirement for occupation in the first sentence. (Anyway, we do have occupation in this very article: editor of a journal). Some people don't have occupations and are notable even so. Anyway, we do give an occupation here. Since the journal in question isn't a household name, it's perfectly reasonable to give a bit of description with first mention. This informs readers in a perfectly reasonable way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was compromising with leaving the lede as "American white nationalist" instead of "American writer known for promoting white nationalism" when I moved "white supremacist" out of the first sentence, but clearly there's no budging from involved editors in this dispute. Zaostao (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Folks involved in this discussion might want to note that Zaostao has been blocked for blatant neo-nazi references/propaganda on his userpage. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, user Special:Contributions/Zaostao was indef blocked at ANI; for records: permalink, thread "Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication.

this isn't supposed to be a hit-piece, especially considering that we are talking about an article about a living person. it is clear that mr. taylor and his publication reject this classification, so if it is to be included, we certainly also need to present the opposite view. however, to include all that in the intro of an article about another topic, doesn't seems natural or appropiate. the link to the article, where the topic is naturally discussed in more details, is a better idea considering that an intro is supposed to be concise and more strictly about the articles topic. -- mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.34.175 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that "taylor and his publication reject this classification" is immaterial as reliable sources support this categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
it is pretty absurd to claim, that his own opinion and perception about himself and his publication, is irrelevant to mention in an article about himself. tbh i believe you know that. another thing is that other and more reliable sources choose to describe the publication in a different manner. one example is carol m. swain who in her book "the new white nationalism in america", call it a "leading intellectual journal of contemporary white nationalism" -- mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.34.175 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should give a single person's opinion such prominence in the lead (as opposed to a more general description supported by multiple sources). As previous discussions on this talk page show, the current description of American Renaissance has consensus and the sources to support it. If you want a different wording, you should seek a new consensus before changing it. clpo13(talk) 22:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

gotcha! i guess i am outnumbered by a gang of wierd lawyers, all suffering from aspergers. the citation from the cambridge university publication is gone and the silly libel is back. enjoy your attack piece & and i will be crying all night like a hillary supporter! congratulation.:) -- mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.34.175 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

Remove the false claim that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. http://time.com/3930993/dylann-roof-council-of-conservative-citizens-charleston/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/23/us/white-supremacist-group-dylann-roof/ The sources that are supposedly trying to prove that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist say nothing to claim that he is a white supremacist, they just mention him in the article where he condemns Dylann Roofs attack. The articles never claim that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, the title just states "White supremacy". Which is just false flagging. Ztaqev2 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The first source calls Taylor a member and spokesman for a white supremacist organisation. The second source is saying the same thing but as it only calls the group white supremacist in the headline I'd prefer a better one. Such as these.[12][13][14][15][16] Then there's American Renaissance (magazine) which he founded, also described as white supremacist. Then there's the sources in the article that you haven't mentioned, and loads of sources in Google Books, eg[17] as just one example. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is a defamation of character, and it is against the law. Please remove the "white supremacist" label from this page immediately. I do not want to have to pursue legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: for the reasons stated by Doug Weller. Also please see: WP:THREAT about our policy re: threatening with legal action. Jarkeld (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own policy, information about a public figure that is libelous is forbidden and is to be removed. See wikipedia's page on legal polices pertaining to libel. Based on this policy I will have to ask you again to remove the libelous information that has been posted on Jared Taylor's page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to explain what information about Taylor you consider libelous. Rockypedia (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking this might need to go to ANI... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect sock via article history of June. It's too obvious with all the different IPs and newly registered accounts practically removing the same thing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII: IPs are geographically scattered. Might want to file an SPI on the accounts though? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"... American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication."

Please provide citations to support the conjecture that the publication is "white supremacist." Otherwise delete "a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication." My own research indicates no such reference has been made to the magazine except this article in Wikipedia.Dr. Manny T. Hanks 21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talk • contribs)

The article about the publication, along with the sources to back up the text are to be found at American Renaissance. Nice to see you come out of editing retirement just to comment on this article. Jarkeld (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
"Dr. Many Thanks" ... that's cute! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr Taylor is not a white supremacist

Listen to Mr Taylor clearly say he is not a white supremacist, starting at 28:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z90KJWk3dPY

Please rewrite the first paragraph to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.3.251 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its descriptions of article subjects on reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:SECONDARY for more on this. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Same video as the one two sections above. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"I completely reject the term white supremacy," - Jared Taylor http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/us/racist-incidents-college-campuses/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.173.238 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation?72.80.143.187 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

see below: unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's looking like there isn't really a consensus that the first sentence is OK. Lotsa people objectin' to it. Might be time to change it, in spite of the strongly-held feelings and the maybe not always 100% cogent arguments of those who want to keep it. Lou Sander (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

says the editor who lept onto this article with a deceptive edit summary to remove sourced material and replace it with material designed to alter (favorbly) the tone of the article toward the subject. An explanation of the Wikipedian concept of consensus, which inspite of your years here you are failing to grasp (or are intentionally misapplying), can be found in the previous link or in even more depth here. Not included in that essay is the further clarification that consensus (or lack thereof) is definitely not determined by a fleet of single purpose accounts and ip editors turning up on a talk page without sources, refusing to acknowledge policy, making uncivil rants and generally refusing to accept the fact that their being here is an effort to join a team of voluntary editorial staff who put their opinions aside when it comes to sourcing content. For the benefit of those who actually are new and aren't pretending not to know how Wikipedia works; please state your proposal for modifying the lede using a change x to y format, citing a reliable secondary source. Edaham (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Lou Sander is very interested in making Jared Taylor seem like a nice mainstream fellow, who happens to believe that white skin means you're better than other people with darker skin. The deceptive edit summaries and the constant POV-pushing, as well as the false premise "Lotsa people objectin' to it" just tells me that he's not here to make Wikipedia better - he's here to whitewash Taylor's image. "lotsa people"? which people? start naming them. And then let's see their arguments that trump the reliable sources. Oh right - none of those things exist. Thanks for stopping by, Lou. I'd like to ask - what's your feelings on the supremacy of the white race? Rockypedia (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"who happens to believe that white skin means you're better than other people with darker skin." When did he say this? If you can provide a single quote from him saying this, I will dance naked in Times Square. All Taylor has ever said is that different races have different strengths and weaknesses, and he thinks diversity is a disaster, because as a group, different races do not get along with each other. You have provided ZERO reliable sources. The very first sentence for this wikipedia page - in which it is alleged he is a white supremacist (a false claim) - is unsourced. There isn't a source on the face of the earth with proof that he's a white supremacist or has ever stated views that qualify as white supremacist. Your evidence is, "well, I can read his mind and know his REAL thoughts." You're engaging in feelings instead of facts as a result of your leftist bias on a website that is supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The article has 38 references. I suggest you look through them. Also read WP:LEADCITE, where you'll learn about why citations aren't repeated in the lead when they're already in the body. Rockypedia (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked you to provide a single quote from him demonstrating he is a white supremacist; just one source proving this claim. You didn't do that, because you can't. Not one of the references contains any such thing. The claim in this article that Taylor is a "white supremacist" is factually false and you're spinning in circles trying to justify leaving something factually untrue in this article out of liberal agenda. You personally being offended by him saying that races have different strengths and weaknesses and diversity is a disastrous thing does not justify lying to misrepresent his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
What you asked me to do is irrelevant, because my opinion of Jared Taylor's stance on anything is irrelevent. As is yours. For an in-depth explanation of why this is the case, I encourage you to read WP:RS for information on what goes into Wikipedia articles. Get back to me after you have a comprehensive understanding of that page. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do you guys keep referring me to pages you clearly don't understand? Minority advocacy groups are not "reliable secondary sources" for Jared Taylor's views. It's factual to say that some people have accused Taylor of being a white supremacist. That's the only thing any sources here show. Not one of the sources proves he is a white supremacist, nor provides a shred of evidence for it. You are not supposed to state something as fact without proof. I agree with you that personal views are supposed to be irrelevant, yet here we are, with you blatantly trying to protect an unfounded claim being stated as if it were fact on this page because of your personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh and by the way - let's not forget Lou's sockpuppet history. Lotsa people objecting to the first sentence? How many, exactly? I feel a project for myself coming on. Like checking out multiple users' edit histories. My idea of fun, believe it or not. I'm eagerly anticipating. Rockypedia (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I touched a nerve somewhere. Sorry. Lou Sander (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If by nerves you mean project guidelines which others follow, but which you ignore when they stand in the way of garnering support for your point of view, then yes you have - on record and on several occasions. On the other hand you've also started hundreds of articles on the navy, singers and thinkers so thanks tremendously for those contributions. Perhaps you could encourage single purpose accounts on this talk page to show the same zeal in taking a wider view of the project. Edaham (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you looking to improve the encyclopedia, or provoke people so that you can crow about "touching a nerve"? Because I'm pretty fed up with the games that white supremacists play when they come to this page, pretending that their purpose is one thing, while seeking to bend and contort Wikipedia policy into a shape that will allow them to market Jared Taylor as something he's not. It's really obvious, and while other editors have more patience and grace than I have while dealing with you and your sockpuppets, I'm happy to point out your deception. You like Jared Taylor and his "whites-first" philosophy, fine, I get it. Go start your own encyclopedia where you can idolize him. This encyclopedia uses reliable secondary sources to describe him. You can accept that, or you can get lost. Rockypedia (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, YOU are the ones who are trying to market him as something he's not. None of us have said he's correct in his views on race. His views - that there are great differences between races, with different races having different strengths and weaknesses on average; that diversity is dangerous and leads to social unrest, and that racial identity is extremely important - are certainly open to debate. All of the studies he cites can be debated as to their legitimacy. However, the one thing that can NOT be debated is the fact that he is NOT a white supremacist, based on wikipedia's own definition of white supremacy. Or, at least, if you think he is keeping his "real" views secret, there is absolutely no proof he is. There is not a single thing showing he believes "that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." What can be shown, however, is that he has said that he believes the first part of that about EAST ASIANS, who are not white, and that he has repeatedly refuted the second part - he doesn't believe anyone should rule over anyone. He believes it is in each race's best interest to stick to associating with members of their own race, however he believes individuals should still be free to do what they want. He thinks that people will freely choose to segregate themselves; it's only forced diversity from policies that have been implemented that disrupt this natural phenomenon. And he wants to stop immigration to the United States, because he believes it is in white people's best interest to be able to maintain a predominantly white homeland in places where they have historically been predominately white (this DOES make him a "white nationalist," according to wikipedia's definition). He also says every other race has a right to maintaining their predominant race in their country, be it Asians, blacks, Hispanics, etc. The fact that these are the views he has openly expressed can be proven, and they do not fit wikipedia's definition for "white supremacy" (or any other definition for that matter). Your emotional, biased, strawman, leftist nonsense about how we're trying to say he's really a great guy, we're defending a white supremacist, blah blah blah, reveals that you shouldn't be editing an internet encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And of course racists always tell the truth, they never try to make their views look more acceptable. But we go by what independent (of him) sources say. Not our own interpretation. We can't just ignore those sources because he doesn't come out and say he thinks whites are better. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So if a source says something without providing a SHRED of evidence for the claim, this is sufficient for stating something as factual on wikipedia? The circular logic is ASTOUNDING. Your argument is literally, "we know he's a white supremacist because we think he's a white supremacist." You are asking us to prove he is NOT a white supremacist without a shred of evidence that he IS one. What's especially hilarious is your "sources" are all leftist internet "anti-fascist" websites; the equivalent to using a false description from Breitbart about a liberal politician and stating it as fact. Who do you think you're trying to fool here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yawn. They aren't anti-fascist websites, some are websites, others are also on paper. Tell you what, go to WP:RSN and make your arguement about the sources. We make it abundantly clear that he denies the charges, and you want us to remove all evidence that anyone disagrees with him. Oh, and we don't use our own definition of white supremacism because we don't use our articles as sources. And that one could certainly be improved. Interesting how you think that anyone who doesn't like racists must be left-wing. Wrong of course and pretty sad, but still interesting. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So now you are resorting to accusing me of "vandalism" because you can't substantiate your false claims? Tell me, how do you think protecting libel is going to affect wikipedia's donations this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you are mentioning what sounds like a legal case with reference to Wikipedia's income. Please do not use legal threats to alter the course of a debate on any of Wikipedia's pages. Edaham (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they are. The very first source is to "Southern Poverty Law Center," which is a nonprofit civil rights group. Gee, what an unbiased source...a group that focuses on accusing people of being bigots for a living. How would I go about making my "arguement" about the sources? It has nothing to do with removing evidence that anyone disagrees with him; it's the fact that the page states that he IS a white supremacist as fact. It is not fact. There isn't a shred of evidence that he is. There is literally as much evidence that there's a unicorn living in Antarctica as there is that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. If you wanted to show that some people THINK he's a white supremacist, you would say, "some" or even "many" people accuse him of being a white supremacist. Alas, you're not interested in accuracy. What definition of "white supremacist" DO you use? The one you made up in your head as a pejorative to dismiss anyone with views you don't like? Oh, and also, in this article, the hyperlink for "white supremacist" takes you to - ta da - wikipedia's article with the definition I copy-and-pasted. You just keep digging yourselves in deeper and deeper. And no, I assume you're left-wing because your unabashed desire to censor the truth gives you away. Well, in this case, you're trying to censor CORRECTIONS on a LIE. You can't just leave it at him being a white nationalist whom many have criticized; you have to try to discredit him by lying about him. People of your ilk always try to brand people you disagree with with certain labels that carry huge stigma to overcome the fact that you don't have any facts or logic on your side. What's sad is that you don't realize that in doing this, you only push more and more people to further and further extremes opposing you. After all, if you're willing to libel people like this, what else are you lying about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Samuel Jared Taylor... is an American white nationalist and white supremacist."

see comment in third template. Scroll wheel saver
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This statement lacks any citations. Please provide evidence that Mr. Taylor is in fact a "white nationalist" and a "white supremacist." Otherwise, these terms should be omitted.Dr. Manny T. Hanks 21:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talk • contribs)

References are located in the Views section. Jarkeld (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
All those references are opinions. Yet in the introduction, Wikipedia's voice states them as fact. Not quite the Neutral Point of View that the encyclopedia states as one of its pillars. Lou Sander (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Which ones are opinions? None of the references look like op-eds to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
They're not opinions, they're just flat-out lies. I hate to break it to you, but every media source is sometimes wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
they're just flat-out lies <--- Which you would know for sure and be able to provide verifiable sources as to the certitude of your claim because you have ascertained this information from... (Please affix sources below) Edaham (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z90KJWk3dPY (28:48) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have vpn access in my location in China atm so I can't watch that. I'm guessing though that it is a video of a white supremacist telling the world that everything is reasonable and that he's really a lovely guy. If that's a case then it's a primary source. That might be acceptable if....
  • 1) due weight is considered and
    2) its quoted in context in addition to, not instead of the reliable sources which exist already on this page
in this case though due weight coupled with the fact that it's a primary source probably suggests that this be excluded - if of course I correctly guessed as to its contents. If you understand the WP guidelines you'll probably use your own discretion and reject the source (unless you have a strong POV of course) Edaham (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
just watched it - its him talking about himself. The above stuff applies Edaham (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The primary source proves that the secondary source is not reliable. What part of that don't you understand? A secondary source alleging something to be so with zero evidence, in the face of proof that what said secondary source alleged is false, is no longer reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to understand it. Wikipedia doesn't work the way you want it to. You need to understand wp:primary wp:secondary wp:v wp:rs etc. When you've read and understood these requirements concerning the editing of the encyclopedia, you will arrive at different conclusions regarding the suitability of the source you've suggested for inclusion in the article. The only reasons you might keep putting forward the above arguments will be be if a)you don't read and understand the policies or b)you continue to push your point of view in spite of having understood them. Also, for the n'th time please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. Edaham (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you don't understand what the word "reliable" means. It does not mean, "source with a claim that has been proven false." The secondary source provides zero evidence for its claim. I could find a secondary source that says the moon is made of green cheese, and said source would be unreliable because it stated something factually false. Any source that alleges Taylor is a white supremacist is factually false. There is no quote in existence of Taylor espousing white supremacist views by any definition of the term (least of all wikipedia's). You are being deliberately obtuse. And stop telling ME what to do. It is YOU who is being despicably dishonest and YOU who should change your behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, the sentence alleging he is a white supremacist isn't even sourced AT ALL. No secondary source in sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The logic of thatis that is that we ignore any evidence about a group or individual and just take their word. Good way to empty the jails. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There is ZERO evidence that he's a white supremacist. Evidence that he's a white supremacist would be something that contains an actual quote of his proving he's a white supremacist. What are you trying to allege, that secondary sources are mind readers and know Taylor's own views better than he does? You can not take the word of a source that says a guy who has never espoused white supremacist views is a white supremacist. It proves the secondary source is unreliable - whoever wrote said source was factually mistaken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2017
please sign your posts with four tildes at the end of each post you make. Also please read some of the links I helped you look up on sourcing material for the encyclopedia. Also you aren't supposed to comment on the personal qualities of other editors when you discuss things on Wikipedia, so calling me obtuse for example, is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, which is one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia rests. I can see you are having trouble and I think that's because you jumped into a debate on a controversial issue before you understood the way things work around here. Don't worry! The links I posted in my previous reply to you will help you get started, as will the links in this post. Why not create an account and follow some of the welcome tips when doing so! Also just one more time; please remember to sign those posts! Happy editing! Edaham (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No. The only evidence Wikipedia cares about is from reliable source. There are many sources already included in the article. Taylor isn't a reliable source, and his views are extremist fringe positions. The only people who take him at his word are other racists in the same walled-garden of academic white supremacy. Wikipedia isn't part of that, we use reliable sources, instead. Taylor's self-description as a white [racial] [identitarian] [realist] [advocate] whatever is no more significant than any other trashy PR spin. Might as well call him a "job creator who provides world-wide race-based solutions". Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Show me a single source that contains proof of him being a white supremacist. Wikipedia itself defines white supremacy as, "a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." Taylor has NEVER espoused any such viewpoint. Calling him a "white supremacist" does not make it so. A secondary source that makes a claim without a shred of evidence is not a reliable secondary source. Every single one of you have revealed yourself to be biased leftists who are letting your own biases dictate how you edit a website that is supposed to be neutral. You're not even trying to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rebranding (which needs its own article by now)

It's common knowledge that white supremacist organisations and individuals have been rebranding, some, eg David Duke, as long ago as the 80s. See for example [18] Mother Jones has an interesting analysis of this. The ADL's page on rebranding[19] specifically mentions Taylor calling him " the forerunner of the “suit and tie racists,” who couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Nice quote, maybe we should use it. I'm serious about the idea that Rebranding, maybe Rebranding the Right or something like that, is probably now notable enough for an article. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Now there's another totally unbiased website for you. The ADL...another minority advocacy group. Minority advocacy groups = "reliable secondary sources." White advocacy groups = "lying racists." You guys are so neutral and stuff. Oh, and "couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Translation: They don't say anything that is actually white supremacism, but I'm still offended by what they say, and I still wish to use the label "white supremacist" to stigmatize and discredit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
There's a pretty good NY Times article about it as well. I would say that getting even more specific, given the amount of info available, would be appropriate. Rebranding white supremacy, perhaps. Rockypedia (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this discussion is getting a bit tongue in cheek. I do think that the above proposals have a place in the white supremacy article. The rebranding issue is basically a cat and mouse game as racist groups keep renaming themselves as soon as the rest of society realizes that they're just the same bunch of neo-nazis as before, but now they have a new name, beards and combovers etc. It's worth a mention as it is happening, but I think it would be much more useful as a section in the article to which it is relevant. Also its probably time to stop antagonizing the editors who object to this page and close the threads as nothing is going to come of this discussion while people continually demand that unsourced modifications be made to the article, and we keep reply that they need sourced materials. I hope nobody objects. Edaham (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Rockypedia (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Opening Sentence

not going anywhere. Continually demanding changes (for a week now) based on POV/primary sources is a defunct debate, which will waste hours of editing time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's try this again. Let's start from the beginning. For the opening sentence, "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist," what is your source (s) for the "white supremacist" part? Don't just tell me to look through all 38 references at the bottom. Tell me which link (s) you are using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See this talk page archive for a detailed discussion on this, as well as the specific sources used. And yes, if your interest in this article goes beyond making Taylor's image more mainstream by eliminating "white supremacist" from the lead, then I'm afraid you're going to have to do some real work, and go through the sources yourself. A lot more work than that was done by other editors in actually adding those sources, so there's no shortcuts available to someone that would simply like to redo the page in a way they like better. Rockypedia (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make his image more mainstream. I'm trying to say there is no evidence he is a white supremacist. Adding sources that don't show what you claim they do is the easiest thing in the world. You think that is more difficult than somehow doing a word-for-word analysis of each of the 38 sources at the bottom to show how they don't prove that he is a white supremacist? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Many editors work on this article and many sources support that Taylor is a white supremacist. Sources for the lede of an article are not, strictly speaking, required in all cases. The lede summarize the body of the article, and in most cases sources in the body are sufficient for content in the lede. Sources 5, 6, 7, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 37, and 38 of this revision are just some of those which support (either directly or indirectly) Taylor's status as a white supremacist. I'm sure more could be found if necessary, but the only people challenging this seem to those who are advocating for the most accommodating interpretation possible. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, it reflects the mainstream consensus in proportion to due weight.
Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or advocacy, adding even more redundant sources is not a productive use of anyone's time. Especially since, from past experience, they're likely to be dismissed as 'biased' or factually incorrect because they don't blindly accept Taylor's promotional claims at face value. Reliable, reputable academics are not expected to accept Taylor's extraordinary claims at face value. They are, instead, expected to question them and analyze them critically. And no, they don't always have to show their work when doing this. These sources have found that Taylor is far, far outside of the mainstream. His position embraces dehumanizing stereotypes without regard for accuracy or historical context. He consistently ignores contradictory evidence and replaces it with debunked pseudoscience. These problems make him a WP:FRINGE figure which is not considered credible, even for his own position.
So, his refutation of 'supremacist' doesn't carry much weight. There is also nothing contradictory between 'supremacist' and 'nationalist'. He can be both, and according to sources, he is both. Don't like what I'm saying? Okay, but that's how Wikipedia works. We have a fundamental mainstream bias. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with the claim that he is a white supremacist? Why do you keep talking about views outside the mainstream? "Views outside the mainstream" is not synonymous with "white supremacy." Nor is "fringe." "His position embraces dehumanizing stereotypes." Source? That's just your opinion using biased language. And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "He consistently ignores contradictory evidence." Source? And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "Debunked pseudoscience." Source? And who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist? "Not considered credible." Who cares? What does this have to do with proving he is a white supremacist?
Now, let's go through the sources you named:
5. This is an opinion piece by Dennis Roddy. This does nothing other than prove that Dennis Roddy thinks he is a white supremacist. He provides no evidence for his claim. Nowhere in this article is there anything showing Taylor said or supports the belief that whites are superior and should therefore rule over other races.
6. This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit whose mission is to sue for discrimination of minorities. Not only is this a biased source, but it provides no evidence that Taylor said or supports the belief that whites are superior and should therefore rule over other races (white supremacy).
7. Book titled "The Myth of Race." Another biased source. Talks about Taylor having criticisms of blacks. Racism is not the same as white supremacy.
9. This source isn't even available.
21. Another article providing zero support for Taylor ever espousing views that whites are the superior race and should therefore rule over other races. One quote mentions him being critical of blacks. Again, being critical of blacks (which is a form of racism) is not the definition of white supremacy.
22. This article's "source" for him being a white supremacist was a link to #6 - the nonprofit whose mission is to sue people for discrimination of minorities.
23. Book on "Right-Wing Extremism." Again, a focus on Taylor being critical of black people, with nothing in there about him being a white supremacist.
24. WSJ: Requires subscription to read.
25. This is redundant - it's the same as source 23.
31. Another redundancy - this is source #6.
37. Page no longer there from another link to source #6.
38. This is sources 23 and 25. Linked 3 different times for 3 different pages in the same book, I guess. None of these pages show he's a white supremacist. And the Roddy article - source #5 - is actually quoted in this book.
All any of these sources prove is that some people think he's a white supremacist. This doesn't make it so. The definition of white supremacist isn't, "a person whom some others think believes such and such." It's a person who DOES believe such and such. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked for a source that shows he is a white supremacist. So far, nobody has provided one. I never said his refutation of being a white supremacist carries weight; I have said that his actual stated views not being white supremacy do. Of all the views that can be found that he has stated anywhere, not one of them falls under the definition of "white supremacy." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what just happened was, Grayfell provided you with a bunch of sources, and you dismissed them as coming from biased sources, or they came from a source you can't read, or you just plain didn't like them. None of those arguments are going to carry any weight. You're beating a dead horse at this point, and you refuse to understand, or just plain don't care, how Wikipedia works. If you want to start an online encyclopedia where you personally get to decide which sources should be included in each article, you're free to do that. At this encyclopedia, there is consensus that these sources are reliable, and your opinion of them is just that - your opinion. So since we're going in circles, I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Rockypedia (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
No, what happened is none of the sources provide proof of anything other than the fact that multiple people think he's a white supremacist. However, the first sentence on this article states that Taylor is a white supremacist as though it is fact. And I'm not sure how you think there is "consensus" of anything. Oh wait, I do; you just dismissed all the other users who disagree with you. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
As I predicted, the IP is dismissing sources which don't accept Taylor at his word, and is instead demanding original research. Regardless of his pet names for them, Taylor's positions are 100% compatible with and supportive of white supremacy. This is according to the only sources Wikipedia cares about. We absolutely do not care about boutique definitions of white supremacy which allow his fans to paint him in a more flattering light. Expecting other editors to find comments he has made which support convenient personal definitions of white supremacy is multiple kinds of wrong. Repeating that demand is, at this point, either foolish or disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, you refuse to actually acknowledge what I am saying. I already told you I have no interest in taking Taylor at his word that he is not a white supremacist. What I am interested in is the fact that none of Taylor's words - in any of his speeches, books, website writings, etc. - indicate he is a white supremacist. At least, none that have ever been provided here. You have yet to provide proof that he is a white supremacist, yet it is stated as fact on this page. Please show me a definition of white supremacy where anything Taylor has ever said fit said definition. Go ahead and use any definition from any website you can find; the definition I was using was wikipedia's own definition. And again, when you talk about "painting him in a flattering light," you're giving away YOUR agenda; that being that you are afraid of painting him in a less unflattering light, so you will go to great lengths to avoid telling the truth because you're afraid others won't see him as negatively. Wikipedia is not supposed to be liberal propaganda. I am not dismissing the sources, I am telling you that the sources do not prove anything other than the fact that some people think he is a white supremacist. Do you understand how "proof" works, and why it is important in ascertaining statements of "fact" in an encyclopedia? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is multiple kinds of wrong. Digging through his own speeches, websites, etc. would be original research. How else can this be said? We don't do original research. We use reliable sources, instead. The people who "think" he's a white supremacist are more reliable than he is, or than we are as Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion anymore than you care about my opinion. Your opinion that nothing he's said proves he's a white supremacist doesn't matter. We care about what reliable sources say he is. That is how good tertiary sources, like encyclopedias, work. Taylor is a white supremacist according to reliable sources. Proof is for researchers. This isn't a platform for that kind of research. Grayfell (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, so it's not up to us. But it IS up to THEM. A reliable secondary source would contain the proof. You know, someone else doing the research. Alas, none of those sources justify their assertion. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." In this case, common sense tells us that the people who wrote these things didn't go through the process of looking up the definition of "white supremacy" in various dictionaries and then identifying something Taylor said that fit under the definition of white supremacy, hence they made a lazy assumption. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
My common sense is telling me that the people who wrote these things did go through the process of looking up the definition of white supremacy... what now? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You honestly believe that? You really think most members of the media/anti-discrimination groups are that careful? That they know something that nobody else here does about things Taylor has said at some point that fit the definition of "white supremacy," which they looked up, and that they didn't just make lazy assumptions based on his background as a white nationalist and their own low (and inaccurate) requirement to brand somebody or something "white supremacist," never bothering to crack open a dictionary? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Experts on discrimination are understood to be using a valid definitions of terms closely connected to discrimination. Dismissively calling them lazy and similar is not a valid reason to challenge that. These sources are more reliable than you are. Your contempt for "media/anti-discrimination groups" is obvious, but that's not Wikipedia's problem. Again, we don't care what about individual prior assumptions or personal opinions at all. You appear to have already decided all of these many sources aren't trustworthy, but have offered absolutely nothing in support of that decision, nor, realistically, could you. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There is no where left for you to go with this discussion if you have already rejected reliable sources just because you don't agree with their conclusions. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Experts on discrimination? You mean people who make their money off suing for it - and sometimes fail - are experts? What's next, are you going to use the words of a prosecutor to assume the guilt of someone who was accused of a crime? And the majority of the sources are just opinion columnists who have nothing to do with racial studies. Many of these same sources accuse Donald Trump of being a racist. Why doesn't the first sentence of Trump's wikipedia page say he is racist? I think we both know why; because wikipedia's viewership would be toast if you pissed off so many people by claiming that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Uh huh. Out of curiosity, which source used in this article says that Trump is a racist? Again, if you've already decided that reliable sources are unusable because you don't like them, you're wasting your time. Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Just look up anything the Southern Poverty Law Center (cited several different times here) has written about him. You'll be there all night. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
really think this is a distraction for everyone. Whilst I can think of plenty of replies, as can the other editors here, it's a clear waste of what basically amounts to working hours. This, and other discussions like it have reached a consensus. Wikipedia requires secondary sources in BLPs. The opposition to this will not bear fruit in the form of changes to article text which is sourced to the hilt. If the opposing editor wants use the primary source to talk about (in a single sentence) the view of the subject of this article, we should consider it for inclusion in an appropriate section, not the lead, and with due weight given to the reams of material, which states that he's a white supremacist. Edaham (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting

Here's an article from 1994 in which Taylor is referred to by the Washington Post as an expert in race relations. When was the media right, then or now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks right on point!
  • Even worse -- according to Jared Taylor, a race-relations expert and author from Louisville -- Osby's assailants were young black men, whom Taylor called "the most dangerous people in America." Taylor, a white man, plans to testify at the trial that he interprets FBI statistics to show that black males are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group separated by age, race and gender.
The source, in that is relevant to this article, seems to characterize Taylor as a person who holds the unabashedly racist view point that all young black men in America are potentially dangerous. That being said, I think there's definitely something we could use from this text in the wp article. What exactly were you proposing to add, or would you like me to have a go? On a tangential note thanks for this contribution, I hope you can continue to help with the Herculean effort of trawling for sources that make the encyclopedia what it is. Edaham (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that you've started contributing sources as opposed to simply debating points of view on talk pages, do you think you'll also start signing your posts too? Edaham (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Of note;

 ive added information from the sources you supplied to his career section Edaham (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What I was trying to show is that the media, aka "reliable secondary sources," used to regard him differently. Taylor always points out that he means "on average," and is talking in generalities. He has consistently argued that, on average, blacks are far more dangerous than other races based on data. I don't think the data is so much in dispute, but rather the interpretation of it. He argues it's genetic, others argue it's either socioeconomic or racism in the criminal justice system. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Those points are good, but they go beyond the scope of what's written in the text you supplied. As you can see, when I added the excerpt to the article, I just neutrally added more or less exactly what was written about him, in the relevant section, without synthesizing anything or adding my own editorial commentary. Edaham (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Topics for RS notice board - now being discussed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As you know, I brought up the dubious nature of using SPLC as a "reliable secondary source" for trying to prove Taylor is a white supremacist. Well, here's an interview video about Maajid Nawaz suing them for defamation of character, since they listed him on their website as an anti-Muslim extremist. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

#1 We don't know what you've brought up, because you are only identified by an IP address, and numerous people could be using that same address to post all over Wikipedia.
#2 What specific changes are you suggesting be made to this article based on the content in that Youtube video? Rockypedia (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 not the place to talk about reliability of sources - This isn't the place to argue about the veracity of sources which have been included per consensus. If you think there is something wrong with using a particular source, this is done at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In this case, before you open a discussion there you should check the archives as this topic has been covered numerous times. The overwhelming consensus on each of these occasions was that the SPLC are biased, however they are very well known and as such lend (or transfer) notability to the subject they accuse. That's why they are considered reliable, not because their opinions are right, but because they are very notable and warrant inclusion. Also a part of consensus resulting from these discussions is that sometimes they make radical claims and that their comments be appropriately attributed and verified by additional sources - both of which have been done in this particular case. Edaham (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, so one step at a time. Would you agree that if the only source alleging Taylor was a white supremacist was SPLC, you would consider that not enough to classify him as one? Otherwise, of course, you would be justified in calling Maajid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist on the page for him (and from what I've read, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali as well). Remember, SPLC is a law group that earns their money on filing discrimination lawsuits for things they believe could net them money. However, they do not get to decide the outcome of the cases they bring, and lawsuits are frequently thrown out for a lack of evidence. Lawyers making allegations is not proof. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the slate.com article written by Martin Gelin's sentence calling him a white supremacist is a hyperlink to the SPLC, meaning the SPLC is their source. Many of these sources alleged to be different actually circle back around to the same sources as their source. The book from Stephen Atkins, which is cited several times: His source is, once again, the SPLC (the quotation about him being the "intellectual, cultured, and cosmopolitan face of white supremacy" comes from the SPLC). The book also quotes the Dennis Roddy article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is another source on this article; the Roddy piece, by the way, ALSO quotes the SPLC (specifically Mark Potok from the SPLC) for the "face of white supremacy" quote. They're all sourcing the same people - the SPLC. You'd better think long and hard about the SPLC as a reliable source, because if you don't have them, it all falls apart. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"It all falls apart" - that's a nice opinion, and completely made-up and pulled out of thin air, based on... what? A hyperlink to the SPLC in one article? A link that doesn't even mean the author is citing the SPLC, but merely providing a link to another website that explains Taylor's white supremacist views more deeply. You're really reaching now. Time to drop the stick, I think. Horse is well past dead. Rockypedia (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Every last one of the sources calling him a white supremacist is either the SPLC's web page or citing the SPLC as their source for this. You're relying on the words of lawyers whose job it is to make accusations against people, whether they're true or not. Again, did you not read the "common sense" part on the "reliable sources" page? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"Every last one of the sources calling him a white supremacist is either the SPLC's web page or citing the SPLC as their source for this." That's flat-out incorrect. So either you didn't actually go through every source, in which case your opinions based on that statement are worthless, or you know that it's incorrect and you're just lying. Either way, I think we're done here. Rockypedia (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you are willing to deny that a hyperlink for the only sentence in an article referring to the guy as a "white supremacist" is citing the SPLC as its source, it's obvious I'm wasting my time. You have an agenda, which has been clear from day 1. Just so you know, though: If you want to discredit someone, it's far more effective not to misrepresent what they say. The people who support these views will see right through this and it will backfire. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No one here is interested in discrediting anyone, so your lesson in how to get that accomplished seems to be one that only you are focused on. As in, discrediting multiple reliable sources that are used in this article. Perhaps you should take your own advice about what things will backfire on you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You're interested in discrediting Taylor, however you don't have the facts to do it, so you resort to clinging to blatantly unreliable sources like gospel. Anyone who reads this talk page can see how politically charged the garbage you and others have written on here is. "I'm sure he's just a nice guy who happens to think people with darker skin are inferior to people with lighter skin." "Fake encyclopedia? Reminds me of someone else who calls everything fake." Blah blah blah. Southern Povery Law Center and Mother Jones good, reliable secondary sources... Breitbart, bad. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Southern Povery Law Center and Mother Jones good, reliable secondary sources... Breitbart, bad. Yes, that's exactly right! Finally you're getting it. Taylor's pseudo-intellectualism does a better job of discrediting him than we ever could. Sources just allow us to share that conclusion here. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
What if all the other sources making this claim about Taylor are discredited in some way as well? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, "biased" doesn't mean "wrong". For this article on Taylor, the SPLC is supported by many other sources, and is explicitly contradicted by almost none.
This American Conservative article by Scott McConnell is an interesting example of a politically conservative view of Taylor. It suggests that Taylor's points from the 1990s about immigration were worth considering, sort of, but not because he was correct, merely because he represented white anxiety bubbling to the surface. It also calls his views horrific, simplistic, and unsupported by any evidence. This and many other sources demonstrate that this isn't a simple left vs. right issue. We do not actively split reliable sources by ideology, but even if we did, the result would be largely the same. The American Conservative article is also useful for another point. McConnell mentions in passing that it was a fax from the ADL that prompted him to look further into Taylor's views. Among other things, groups like the ADL and SPLC provide information to journalists and the public as part of their mission. This is just one part of why they are so important- because journalists listen to them. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that article doesn't call him a white supremacist, though. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
He's not a can of soup. He doesn't need to have the ingredients written on each time he's packaged. Edaham (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?

Overall, this article does seem to be written from a Neutral Point of View, yet it seems to inspire a lot of controversy. I think this is because the first sentence uses Wikipedia's voice to express opinion as fact. The white nationalist and white supremacist stuff is really just opinion, isn't it? Better would be "... is a controversial American writer (or writer and publisher, or whatever)." Also in the introduction, the "among others" doesn't seem to be very well supported in the body of the article. IMHO, making these changes to the introduction would do a lot to improve the article, reduce the complaints and threats of lawsuits, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence summarizes what Jared Taylor is notable for, with reliable sourcing. The changes you prefer would probably satisfy a lot of Taylor's followers, but that's not a valid reason to veer away from how reliable sources describe the subject and what he's notable for. Rockypedia (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Taylor has never once put forth white supremacist views. The article would be much better written if instead it said something like "Taylor is considered by some to be a white supremacist". That is factual and true. But Taylor himself completely rejects that label. Anyone who has ever listened to his lectures would be an idiot to think he's a white supremacist. But if you insist that he is, then cite me one, just ONE, instance of him ever making white supremacist claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if anyone followed your instruction here, it would have no bearing on the article. We don't write descriptions based on inferring that someone is a certain thing because of statements they've made. We write descriptions based on what reliable secondary sources describe a subject as. Rockypedia (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That's absolutely ridiculous. When something from a "reliable secondary source" is proven false, it is no longer a reliable source for that information. To say otherwise is just being flat-out disingenuous.
The first sentence of the article presents the legitimate opinions of reliable sources as facts. It also uses judgmental language. Those two seem to violate Wikipedia's policy/requirement to maintain a Neutral Point of View. Lou Sander (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That's unrealistic. If a plain reading of sources support this, it's fine to present this as factual. To do otherwise would be to support a WP:FRINGE perspective. "Judgmental" is a dead-end. How would we describe a white nationalist and white supremacist in non-judgmental language? Actively avoiding the potential appearance of being judgmental would be non-neutral, and invites bloated writing, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence uses Wikipedia's voice to present opinions as fact. The policy is that opinions should not be presented as fact. Where do you get the notion that a plain reading of sources is OK to present as fact? It looks like you might be creating a Fake Encyclopedia. Lou Sander (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Labeling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Reliable sources do not present this as an opinion, they correctly present it as a simple statement of fact, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. To equivocate on this would be bending over backwards to accommodate an extremist fringe perspective far beyond neutrality and reliable sources. "Fake encyclopedia"... sure, good luck with that. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources are clearly not reliable, because they are presenting things that are false as factual. There is no evidence whatsoever provided in the source, nor does it exist anywhere else, that Taylor is a white supremacist. Simply put, he has never stated anything that is white supremacy. Stating that different races have different strengths and weaknesses is not white supremacy. You can't just misrepresent his views or change the definition of a word to fit what you want to be the truth and expect people not to object to your idiocy.
Twist it any way you want. Fake is fake. Lou Sander (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I've heard someone else use that word "fake" a lot lately; can't quite remember who it was though. I believe it was a prominent public figure, though. Rockypedia (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
And there it is. Your agenda on full display for all to see. You have no business editing wikipedia. This is not the place for you to exercise your liberal/leftist/SJW bias. Your denial of the necessity for dealing in fact, as opposed to misrepresentation of views, is rooted in your hypersensitivity to all things race-related and desire to mischaracterize everything as "racism" and "white supremacy," even when is factually is not (based on accepted definitions of the terms).
The term "fake encyclopedia" sounded familiar ... [20]. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me coming into this conversation but I must say that Lou Sander puts across a very good initial point. To term Jared as a "white supremacist" is unfairly representing his views. It is true that he is a white nationalist but to term him a "supremacist" makes out to the reader that he has a racist, white-centered ideology. As I say this doesn't fairly represent the guy. I have read very little of his article so don't have much else to comment on but surely anyone who has listened to Jared can clearly see that identifying him as a "supremacist" is completely unjust. I know there will be some who disagree but I believe that the opening line is very misleading to a new reader. Pingu4581 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What a surprise, an account that goes weeks, months (sometimes years) without activity suddenly wakes up and does two things: erases the edit-warring messages on his talk page, and one minute later comes to the Jared Taylor talk page to support the view of another editor that wishes to white-wash Taylor's description against consensus. So clever! You were so close to making me think that the current lead doesn't accurately reflect reliable secondary sources. Alas, it does. Rockypedia (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no question that the current lead accurately reflects reliable secondary sources. At least nobody here is saying that. The problem is that it uses Wikipedia's voice to state opinion as fact, which isn't exactly maintaining a neutral point of view. Lou Sander (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's just, like, your opinion, man. Rockypedia (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey mate Rockypedia (talk) don't distract the conversation. You clearly have a differing view point but to bring up that sketch about my edit war...just don't. You don't know what happened in that incident so let's cut from looking at flaws in contributors and start working on a fair solution to the disagreements about this page. No need to go off conversation, so why don't you stick to the matter at hand. Pingu4581 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you missed my point entirely? Okay, I'll spell it out plainly - You are a sockpuppet of another account. Your efforts to influence the arguments here by using multiple accounts will be ignored. Thanks anyway. Rockypedia (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe if you provided evidence to back up this ludicrous claim then I would listen to you. Just saying things doesn't make them a fact Pingu4581 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

New Section Title

I've seen my share of attack pages and coatracks, but this one takes the cake. The way this BLP is presented is an embarrassment to the project. What exactly is going on? WP is not a soapbox, or advocacy or a place to right great wrongs. Editors need to pay attention and realize the blatant BLP and NPOV violations will result in some editors getting TB. If you are not familiar with what NPOV looks like in a controversial article, I suggest that you read Charles Manson and Hitler. Atsme📞📧 02:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In your haste you forgot to give your post a section title, which I have done. Your wiki-lawyering and wiki-shaming is misplaced. The lede which was in place before you altered it was written in good faith based on numerous sources and through the efforts of many editors on both (or neither) side of the fence. There are undoubtedly people who have more than editorial accuracy in mind when approaching this article. This is natural. Your hyperbole about topic bans and so on is an effort to undermine the work of good-faith editors using scare tactics. There's an enormous wealth of sources from channels which would be reliable in most circumstances, which say he's a supremacist, nationalist and so on. Editors wrote the article based on this. The continually thrown pitch that the SPLC is the only source on which this article relies is simply false and telling editors that they have committed some kind of infraction in this respect is gaming. Let's stick to just finding sources and including them in articles and leave out the emotional references to violations, Hitler, etc... Edaham (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources on "white supremacist"

I spent a few minutes looking and found numerous sources which describe Taylor as:

  1. "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists"
  2. a "well known white supremacist/seperatist,"
  3. a "Virignia White Supremacist,"
  4. a "major force in white supremacist circles,"
  5. "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement.
  6. "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist"
  7. and "a prominent white supremacist"

There are many more sources like this out there, that's just all that I can be bothered to link at the moment. That is all. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have already advised you to read what source is cited for those claims - SPL, that's who. Furthermore, people calling people names in a single sentence doesn't make it FACTUAL. They are opinions - learn the difference. You cannot use opinion in WP voice. What is wrong with you? I have asked you to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and you have ignored me. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you or anyone else. I've already given the required warnings. Now I'm going to get some sleep, and complete what needs to be done tomorrow. Atsme📞📧 04:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix is completely correct. A huge number of sources (including multiple books published by academic presses) explicitly describe Taylor as a white nationalist or supremacist. Many of the sources use these descriptions without relying on or citing to the SPLC. I have added some of the most useful sources (in a citebundle) to reflect this:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[1] and white supremacist.[2]

References

  1. ^
    • Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream (Farrar, Straud and Giroux, 2009), p. 370 & 427: "Taylor began his public foray into the white nationalist arena with a newsletter he edited called American Renaissance... Taylor, by eschewing conspiracy mongering and what they called 'paramilitary infantilism,' gave white nationalism greater potential access to the conservative mainstream."
    • Roxanne Lynn Doty, The Law Into Their Own Hands: Immigration and the Politics of Exceptionalism (University of Arizona Press, 2009), p. 61: "One of the more prominent members of the new white nationalism is Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance."
    • Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 121: "White nationalist Jared Taylor had this to say..."
    • Eric J. Sundquist, King's Dream (Yale University Press, 2009), p. 79: "the white nationalist Jared Taylor"
  2. ^
    • Elizabeth Bryant Morgenstern, "White Supremacist Groups" in Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (ed. Kathleen R. Arnold: Greenwood/ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 508: "Jared Taylor is the editor of the American Renaissance magazine, a publication that espouses the superiority of whites. ... Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic..."
    • Michael Newton, White Robes and Burning Crosses: A History of the Ku Klux Klan from 1866 (McFarland, 2014), p. 216: "Virginia white supremacist Jared Taylor"
    • Jonathan Mahler, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, New York Times (March 1, 2016), p. A15: "Jared Taylor, long one of the country's most prominent white supremacists."

This should put the correctness of the white nationalist/supremacist description in this article beyond all doubt. Taylor has been known as a white nationalist/supremacist for 25+ years. That is what he is known for. As the sources plainly show, it is at the core of his notability. Neutralitytalk 05:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is easily sourced to academic scholars. Very concerning a long time editor doesn't recognize this......is there more that should be reviewed?--Moxy (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality, I don't have access to the books you cited so I can't see the cited pages, the footnotes, bibliography or references. But no, it doesn't convince me beyond all doubt, and I'll explain why based on what I do know. All but a one or two of the cited sources I was able to access happen to reference SPL, and we've already established that SPL is not a RS for this purpose. I refer you to WP:NEWSORG, and WP:BIASED which may well include some of the scholarly publications you listed. I'm not saying opinions or biased sources cannot be cited or used with inline text attribution, rather what I am saying is that we cannot say it in Wiki voice, and that is what I consider non-compliant. The lead of this BLP states matter of factly "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" in Wiki voice and that is what I'm disputing along with all the other inappropriate claims that are not sourced to a RS. If you'll look back at my edits in the edit summary, you will see the parts I removed and hopefully you will also see that my removal was indeed justified based primarily on the sources. I am confident that the edits I made follow inline with both BLP, NPOV and V.
Opinion is still opinion, and conflicts of interest make a source questionable per WP:REDFLAG: challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]; While still reciting V, neutrality is policy: Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. I stand by what I said here and here, and I am confident that my edits were compliant with the policies I mentioned, and that as this BLP stands now, it is blatantly non-compliant with BLP. Atsme📞📧 07:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

Other sources

All of these sources cannot be just parroting SPLC without critical thinking on their part, can they? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the policies I've pointed to, what I'm actually challenging, and in particular, pay attention to opinion vs fact because if you will read the very 1st source you cited, it states clearly "His critics have classified him...." yada yada yada - in other words, OPINION, not fact. When statements are disputed they are not fact and should not be stated in Wiki voice as fact. Atsme📞📧 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll have to come up with a more viable suggestion than your last proposal then. By attributing SPLC prominently in the lede, the way you worded it before could give the impression that they are his main, or only critic. Such is not the case. Can you formulate another proposal? Edaham (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sources I was able to verify that didn't require a subscription to access a paywall, or a 60 mi RT to a metropolitan library have cited SLP and other sources that have cited SLP. My "proposal" remains the same - the article is noncompliant with BLP, NPOV, and V by stating opinion as fact, and it doesn't matter one iota if those opinions are in tertiary sources, RS that are biased, or RS that actually pass as a RS - we can't state derogatory opinions as statements of fact in WP voice. Atsme📞📧 13:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you might be able to remind us what the consensus was last time. Edaham (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

  • I'll start what I'm going to say here by acknowledging that I became aware of this discussion because I watch Atsme's talk page. I've read the discussions here and at RSN. It appears to me that the sourcing for calling him a white nationalist and white supremacist is overwhelming. It also seems to me that we should attribute these characterizations to the source material. Looking at the page, I think the issue is the most acute for the lead sentence. I think that Atsme's edits went too far in watering down the lead, but also that the lead can be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone, leaning partway in the direction of what she was trying to accomplish. It's pretty typical for a BLP lead sentence to emphasize what the subject does, as opposed to how they are characterized. I suggest making it something like:
Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been widely described as a white nationalist and white supremacist.
I've probably got the "activist, writer, and editor" part not quite right, but I think you can see what I'm trying to suggest. It does not "bury the lead", because it still makes it very clear what he really is, but it also takes the characterization out of Wikipedia's voice. I hope this helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're closer to nailing it than anything I've seen yet, Tryptofish. The derogatory terms should not be the primary lead-in summarizing a BLP's entire life/body of work, rather it should follow who the man is as a human being (BLP) and then note what others have characterized him as per inline text attribution. I would also recommend that because it is a contentious label likely to be challenged time and time again, that it be cited to a RS with inline text attribution in the lead and properly stated with more detail in the body of the article cited to a few more RS. Atsme📞📧 00:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"widely characterized" or "widely known as" etc, are answers to my criticism, that if you solely attribute the SPLC as being a critic who applies the label white supremacist, then you make it look like he only has one critic. This new suggestion contains weasel words. Widely described firstly, is not the kind of language we use and secondly, he's not "described as" a white supremacist. He is one. Beyond his academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power, there's no other thing which makes his entry into Wikipedia notable enough for inclusion. Edaham (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at this very carefully (saw the previous edit on Recent changes), but "as a human being" isn't really what we do. Some people are notable cause they're singers, some cause they're the PM on Australia, and some because they're white supremacists, which is apparently what this guy is. I don't rightly see what the problem is if the sources are decent--it's not a derogatory term, really; if one thinks it is, one probably shouldn't be one, no? Drmies (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, he's not. At least there's no proof that he is. I know, I know..."reliable secondary sources." Here's the thing: There is nothing he has said or written that fits any dictionary definition of white supremacy. I can guarantee that any source that claimed he was a white supremacist did one of the following for their "fact checking": Either, A. Googled it and parroted other sources, most likely either the SPLC's description of him, or the ADL's, or B. Read some of his stuff from somewhere and used the term without knowing what the term actually means, thinking it's synonymous with "this sounds racist to me." Racism is not synonymous with white supremacy. White supremacy is a specific type of racist; a racist who believes whites are the superior race and should rule over other races. Taylor has espoused no such views, and he has espoused views directly in contradiction to that (Asians are superior to whites in both intelligence and lower crime rates, etc., and he doesn't believe anyone should rule over anyone, but he believes each race has a right to an area where they are the majority). "Promote white power"...what do you mean by this? And do you think promoting "black power" is "black supremacy?" 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Your failure to understand, or insistence on purposefully refusing to understand how we put articles together from sources puts you way out of your depth in this debate. Everyone who exists within a public sphere has critics. The notability of a selection of those critics makes them valid sources for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Speculating as to how those valid sources retrieved their information does absolutely nothing to support your wish to exclude those sources from the article, not does it support your ensuing original research, which begins with you talking about, Racism is not synonymous with.... As for your question, you must be joking, right? A tangential herring to throw this into a forum style debate of the subject. Not what we are talking about and highly disruptive. Edaham (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You really have no clue what you're talking about. You don't actually comprehend the "reliable secondary sources" page, which is what I have been saying from the very beginning. There is a section in there about "common sense." Common sense in this case dictates that you consider the context in which the source makes its claim. A claim from a source that actually supports its claim with, say, a direct quote, is a reliable source. If a source showed a quote of Taylor's that espoused views consistent with the definition of white supremacy, you would have your reliable secondary source. Alas, you do not. Besides, you said "beyond his academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power, there's no other thing which makes his entry into Wikipedia notable enough for inclusion." Academic attempts to justify racism and promote white power are not white supremacy. You and numerous other posters are the ones who generate this off-topic response from me because you reveal time and again that you do not understand what "white supremacy" means. You keep talking about things like "outside the mainstream" and "racism" and "extremism," none of which are the same thing as white supremacy. That's not "original research." I have a reliable source for that information. It's called the dictionary. Stick to the subject: You think you can call him a white supremacist because you think you can take sources' word for it. He only "is" a white supremacist in the eyes of some of the media. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You and numerous other posters are the ones who generate this off-topic response from me ~ I had no idea my influence was so strong. I apologize. In future I'll try to only use my powers for good. Edaham (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, of course, with Edaham. I absolutely oppose this as well. "Widely described as" is WP:WEASEL and frankly waters down the sources. If we want to say "Jared Taylor is a white nationalist and white supremacist writer and activist" that would be fine with me. But this "widely described as" stuff is poor writing and improper distancing from the sources. If the sources say that he is a white nationalist/supremacist — and they do, overwhelmingly — that is what we also say. Neutralitytalk 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see the concerns about the wording having an improper distancing effect. Perhaps "is widely considered to be" would be stronger. I don't think that "widely" is weaselly so long as there are inline cites for the statement, that show the multiplicity of sources. I think that editors who see as insufficient anything that doesn't make it a declarative statement in Wikipedia's voice should consider that this still does have the effect of declaring him as what he is, right there in the first sentence, but presents it as a determination that has been made by the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than by editors, and that does not make it poor writing. But I'm no fan of this person, and I'm not going to push the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
While there are (possibly) BLP concerns that justify weasel-words for "white supremacist", there's definitely no reason to use them for "white nationalist". "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and white nationalism activist." may be sufficient for the lede sentence, the phrase "white supremacist" can be later in the paragraph as a compromise? Power~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's get this clear, we aren't looking for a compromise between what's been written about him and the views of his sympathizers. We are looking for an accurate article. This man, according to sources, exists within and helps to define the modern face of white supremacy. Part of that promotional effort (as has always been the case) is to come up with softening terms to help win support and make the ideas that they promote seem more mainstream. The current version of the article gets this point across very well and with no editorial synthesis of information. No compromise is required to make this article more digestible to people who buy into the re-branding activities, which have become popular among the far-right. Edaham (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: This is an encyclopedia that operates based on consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: It is. And what you are going to find is that consensus veers away from proposals which seek to "tone" down articles in order to appease special interest groups (or anyone for that matter) who want to make it adhere more closely to their view points. Edaham (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What about putting the editor/author stuff up from and then using "best known as an advocate of white supremacy/white nationalism"? It still makes the subjectivity clear, but maybe it makes it sound a little less like we're suggesting that this is a misconception.There appear to be no mainstream sources that actually contest those labels, and lots of sources that use them. Nblund talk 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    You can say he's an American white supremacist activist and editor, or a writer who writes white supremacist literature. You can't call him an author who has been widely described as a white supremacist in the same way you couldn't, at the risk of supplying more fuel to this debate by analogizing, call "Albert Camus" an author, widely described as an existentialist. He doesn't get to decide that category or the source of its attribution and neither do we. The source of those attributions are clear, they come from his readers, critics and those who put books onto shelves. He disapproved of that categorization, yet if you pop over to his Wikipedia article, in the info box, the word is right there. His objections are also noted. He's dead, but the same situation applies to numerous cases of living authors. White supremacy isn't a slur term by definition. It's a slur term because the people to whom it applies are disparaged for their hateful viewpoints. White supremacy is a category. It's a category into which this author and editor and activist fits - along with a wealth of sources to demonstrate this. Removing that information from his description, or misattributing it as a slur used by his detractors is removing info from the article and making it more vague. The only reason anyone would want to do this is to support the subject of this article by distancing him from a term which many people revile. Edaham (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies...he is notable as a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Statement of fact: he is associated with a magazine that reverse discrimination opinions consider white supremacy. See the example I used from the Britannica article about the ADL. Liken it to the way some religious groups may consider Penthouse a magazine of filth founded by the devil himself, while others consider it art - it's opinion. How do we describe it in the lead - that it's a filthy magazine with pictures of shameless naked women in compromising positions? Do we describe the founder as the devil himself? Of course not! Those words are not used and neither should labels like white supremacist which is a derogatory term the guy vehemently denies. WP PAGs are very clear about how we should handle contentious labels and that includes "racist" - see WP:TERRORIST. There should not be an argument over the terminology if we're following WP:PAG, so what exactly are we doing here? IAR in a BLP because the guy is hated by some editors? I could understand it if our policies and guidelines were ambiguous in this situation, but they are not - they are very clear. Atsme📞📧 11:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Atsme--potatoes, potatoes... BTW someone calls Penthouse "art"? That's news to me, but I never had a subscription. Ha, somewhere in this discussion suggests that "black power" should be treated the same as "white power"--we have truly elevated false equivalency to where it operates universally. If al "xxxx power" is the same... Drmies (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Drmies, I think they still call Penthouse Penthouse, and off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that one can't question, can you? Now you've confused me...???...all this time, I thought white power was Clorox. I need to get out of the house more. Me thinks I don't agree with your take on "false equivalency" (if I'm understanding you correctly), particularly that it's universal. It actually depends on where you're from and how you were raised. Think about that for a minute...🤔😘 Atsme📞📧 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Lee D. Baker (10 February 2010). Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture. Duke University Press. pp. 156–. ISBN 0-8223-9269-0.
  • Stephen E Atkins (13 September 2011). Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-1-59884-351-4.
  • Kathleen R. Arnold (23 September 2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 508–. ISBN 978-0-313-37522-4.
  • Charles A. Gallagher; Cameron D. Lippard (24 June 2014). Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1341–. ISBN 978-1-4408-0346-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 06:59, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
AGAIN...WP PAGs are very clear about how we should handle contentious labels and that includes "racist" - see WP:TERRORIST. There should not be an argument over the terminology if we're following WP:PAG, so what exactly are we doing here? IAR in a BLP because the guy is hated by some editors? It doesn't matter if tertiary sources, news media, or books have published their opinions - they are not facts - the sky is blue is a fact, color television has been invented is a fact, the earth rotates on its own axis is a fact. Calling or labeling someone a racist is an OPINION, and that is a fact. Atsme📞📧 12:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Your argument seems to have subtly shifted so I want to make sure we're still talking about the same thing - are you now arguing that he should not be directly described as a racist in the lead? Because, of course, he is not described as a racist in the lead. Rockypedia (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
the current (uncompelling) argument is based on the idea that white nationalist is derogatory in the manner of terms like cult, terrorist etc. Firstly it's not. Secondly the policy you are quoting recommends discretion, which has been duly exercised (over a very lengthy period of discussions) in this case. Edaham (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Having just stumbled on this page yesterday, it sure looks to me like there are editors who have placed themselves into such antagonistic camps that they are telling one another that they are refusing to understand or have no clue. But if one really cuts through all the WP:Battleground stuff, all that is really at issue is whether we call him a white nationalist and white supremacist in Wikipedia's voice, or say that sources call him those things.
Now it seems to me that we have plenty of sourcing to establish that he is a white nationalist, and he is a white supremacist. I've read all the arguments about the sourcing being inadequate, and I'm unpersuaded. And it's not a hatchet job to call him those things. It's a well-sourced statement of... not fact, really, but mainstream source consensus. I've seen a lot of suggestions about other ways of getting words like "writer" or "activist" into the lead sentence, but that misses the point. It's not important to simply find ways to include his work areas, but whether or not we call him a nationalist/supremacist in Wikipedia's voice.
So I see the issue as finding a balance between WP:WEASEL, because we shouldn't use overly vague language over something that is so well-sourced, and WP:TERRORIST, because there are differences between opinion and fact that become particularly important in the context of WP:BLP. And hey folks, look: WEASEL and TERRORIST are adjacent to one another on the same guideline page! What a coincidence! So it shouldn't be a matter of going only with one of them or only with the other. They exist in balance. I think that the balance ends up (largely because of the importance of BLP) on the side of treating the nationalist and supremacist characterizations as attributed instead of in Wikipedia's voice, but your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts."~~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I think that quote says it all. Opinions do not become facts simply because 1,000 sources state an opinion (and chances are, if you'll check the sources they cite in their respective footnotes/bibliographies, you'll find SPLC or ADL somewhere. The BLP itself provides no convincing evidence that Taylor is a white supremacist, a Klansman, Nazi or skin head. An advocate of the Caucasian race, perhaps? How about white freedom fighter?[FBDB] "Nationalist" has already been changed to represent something entirely different from what it was actually intended to mean before MSM and scholars got a hold of it, so WP's use of terminology changes as fast as, or faster than MSM's. Perhaps the following quote noted by SPLC explains some of what's going on: “Warfare is eminent,” the SPLC quoted the website, “and in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites — more than our Christian hearts can possibly count.” Cited to [21] Show me where in Ayo Kimathi the guy is called a black supremacist. No, he's described as a "21st-century Black freedom-fighter". Everything he has said, done, and attempted to do spells out who and what he is - unambiguously - yet, we're over here fighting over labeling this dude a white supremacist? It's like calling a Chihuahua a Great Dane. I sure as hell hope WP hasn't stooped that low - but then, there's this. Atsme📞📧 21:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with the lead sentence in Dylann Roof? Rockypedia (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll answer by asking you if you have a problem with the lead sentence in Hitler? The encyclopedia has to maintain some form of consistency - we are advised (wisely) to pattern after GAs and FAs; the latter having undergone painstaking scrutiny...worse than a root canal!!! Atsme📞📧 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't have a problem with the lead sentence in Hitler, because he is notable for a list of so many things that it would be ridiculous to put "white supremacist" ahead of about 20 other things he's notable for. I'll ask you again, since you avoided the question entirely: Do you have a problem with the lead sentence in Dylann Roof? Rockypedia (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I know nobody will go for this, but how about "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American anti-diversity author and spokesperson?" That is literally what he is and it's what he's notable for. It's why he's maligned in the media - he openly argues that diversity is bad and wants to do away with policies promoting it in the United States. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason no one will "go for this" is that it's not in a single reliable secondary source. Rockypedia (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Rockypedia, I think Tryptofish nailed it with his suggestion...Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been widely described as a white nationalist and white supremacist. THAT is a fact. Atsme📞📧 21:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. When many reliable sources give an 'opinion' on something stated as a fact, that's a valid reason to look closer. Presenting something as an opinion just because people disagree with it, or because it contains subjective components, doesn't make it meaningfully an opinion. To equivocate on this would be to cast doubt on many reliable sources in favor of Taylor's self-serving PR and evasiveness. Taylor is choosing language based not on accuracy, but on what would be the least offensive to a chosen audience. The fundamental ideas he conveys are recognized by sources as supremacist. Wikipedia isn't a platform for buzzwords, ad-speak, or euphemisms, and this is no different. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? Show me that policy, please Grayfell. I've listed all of the PAGs that support my argument - perhaps I missed the one you're referring to. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:WEASEL, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Be specific and stop inundating us with BS links that generalize. Cite the words in the policy that support your position. I say all of the ones you cited oppose your position. Furthermore, see the following article and keep in mind the following article from the Guardian. Enjoy! Atsme📞📧 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
UTC)
...yeah, or don't. @Atsme: : There is a route you could take which worked really well in getting perceived negativity removed from the press and from Wikipedia. The media was very generous in its coverage of Derek Black when he renounced white supremacy and actively began countering it in a public forum. Perhaps you (possibly being familiar with the subject of this article) could have a word with him and get him to follow suit. I'll try to be the first to revise this page when the "facts" about him change. Btw - last two links there: WP:NOTFORUM Edaham (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WTF? Edaham you are treading on thin ice by even insinuating that I am familiar with this guy. Continue that kind of behavior and what little time you've invested as an editor on WP will more than likely be short lived. Atsme📞📧 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"what little time you've invested as an editor on WP will more than likely be short lived" Atsme, you've been an editor on Wikipedia more than long enough to know that that's a threat, that's not allowed, and your extra insinuation that his opinion is less valid because of his "little time" on Wikipedia can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, or a threat or both - probably because that's exactly what it is. You left a similar threat on my talk page. I don't think any of that type of rhetoric is helpful, and honestly, the virulent attitude has made me wonder as well, what your connection to the subject is. I don't think Edaham's comment was out of line at all. Rockypedia (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't humor unreliable sources under the guise of neutrality. Do you really need specifics for that point? Taylor is an extremely unreliable source who has a specific motive to present his position in a favorable light. He is both unreliable and biased, and his opinion is only being considered because he is the topic of the article. That's not trivial, but false balance is still a big risk. "White supremacist" accurately summarizes his position according to many sources. Wikipedia articles should reflect his position according to reliable sources. To say "widely described" would imply that a minority of reliable sources dispute this. That is not accurate. Even if they do not use the same language, they do not dispute this.
What do either of those Guardian articles have to do with this? Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, you aren't bringing anything new to this argument. Please read from the beginning so you're not wasting our time with the same ole same ole we've already gone through. Our PAGs are unambiguous, and your opinions do not overrule them. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason s/he's "not bringing anything new to this argument" is because everything has already been said over and over and over and over and over and over (and over)^157, yet you still persist with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's time to drop the stick and leave the poor dead horse alone. Already way too much time has been spent on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Taylor/Archive_3&oldid=1077401278"