Talk:Taki's Magazine

September 2008 comment

I can't tell if this article is just about Top Drawer, or takimag as well.--Filthy swine (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contributors reference

Why is there a reference to VDARE.com used in this article? It doesn't qualify as a WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Refs per edit summary

Sources reporting this: [1] [2] [3]

Golden Dawn support articles: [4] [5]

Golden Dawn is described on website as having an ideology of Ultranationalism, Neo-Nazism and Fascism

Ergo, it needs adequate representation in article --80.193.191.143 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it against the spirit of "neutral point of view" to remove mention of a publication endorsing an active fascist group on the grounds that fascism has negative connotations? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

David Cole (Holocaust revisionist)

David Cole (Holocaust revisionist) is a contributor too.

The link goes to a disambigulation page, not to an article about a particular David Cole. The listing is for notable contributors. Until the David Cole gets an article, we leave him off the list. See WP:WTAF. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Article in question is discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Cole

Yes, and I saw the discussion. You might go look at Articles for Creation. (But from what I read I do not think he meets notability standards.) Also, you ought to WP:REGISTER as a Wikipeidian. – S. Rich (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello persistent IP. I regularly look at this article. In general we follow the essay WP:WTAF when adding names to lists. This means we restrict names to people with notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. That way we avoid problems like WP:ISNOT when writing articles. Whether Cole is a Holocaust revisionist or not is not relevant to the article. If you can garner support on this talk page from other editors to include his name then consensus will prevail. But at present Cole is not WP:NOTEWORTHY for having contributed to the magazine. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that you have your motives in persistently removing this and that saddens me. I will not include it again --5.81.54.220 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant based on the editor's decision to include the voice of a holocaust denier in their magazine. The choice reflects the ideology of the publishers and those associated with the magazine. The issue of the author's lack of notoriety as evidenced by their lack of a wiki page is tangential to the core concern of what ideological POV is represented by the publication.--Bojack punx (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

^ "holocaust denier" you say? Careful! FACTS MATTER: https://www.takimag.com/article/immigration-the-holocaust-and-a-cancel-culture-fail/ "The investigation revealed that the author is not a Holocaust denier." -Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct "I’ve been gifted with arguably the greatest tool I’ll ever have for battling future libel…and revisiting libels past." -David Cole 142.229.115.111 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Categories

Unless there are some solid sources establishing that Taki's Magazine has an actual editorial policy endorsing neo-Nazi ideology and Holocaust denial, there is no justification for including it in neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial categories. Laval (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Golden Dawn description

My original revert was because the original edit that changed this text was from a banned sock; I hadn't noticed that it had been re-instated by another editor since after an objection. I agree that the Press Gazette didn't actually talk about Taki's Magazine, but removing it meant that we had no secondary sources at all (obviously we cannot rely on Taki Magazine's own description, which is WP:PRIMARY and unambiguously self-serving in this context.) So I found two other sources for it receiving criticism over that publication. After adding them, I realized both characterize Golden Dawn as a Neo-Nazi group, so I changed it to that. Please add secondary sources, referencing Taki's Magazine, which characterize it as a far-right group instead before changing it back. --Aquillion (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion is referring to this edit, I'm glad that's cleared up now. Aquillion has done some work to shore up this sentence: "It garnered some controversy in 2013 after it published articles in support of the Greek Neo-Nazi political party Golden Dawn." now citing an article by Taki Theodoracopulos and two critics: Mike Rothschild in the Daily Dot, Dylan Matthews in Vox. Taki doesn't actually say in the article that he "supports" Golden Dawn or that it's Neo-Nazi, so the Wikipedia-voiced sentence is purely Rothschild + Matthews. There's nothing to suggest they are as Greek as Taki or know Greek affairs better. So the sentence is bad because it's not actually showing what Taki said, and using sources which in context are poor. However, I won't revert unless others agree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits on 14 August 2022 and 15 August 2022

On August 14 and 15 Llll5032 has made around 25 edits to the article. They might be controversial and affect one or more living persons. Example: Mr Theodoracopulos was a co-founder of The American Spectator sourced to The Independent but there is no other source for this and it's probably an illustration of The Independent's carelessness (he was in fact a co-founder of The American Conservative). Example: Mr Theodoracopulos is known for his use of racial and anti-Semitic slurs which goes back to his casual statement that he is a "soi-disant anti-Semite", ignoring that he later remarked “No! Everyone gets that quote wrong, because they don’t speak French. Soi-disant means ‘so-called.’ I am saying that everyone else calls me an anti-Semite!” as quoted here (I agree that he's the one who's wrong but that's enough to establish that the sentence as worded is poorly sourced). Example: the lead sentence said Mr Theodoracopulos was a journalist, Llll5032 removed that word. Example: the SPLC described Taki's Magazine as "a paleoconservative outlet that includes white nationalist authors" i.e. the SPLC's hatewatch blog is being emphasized as if their predictable opinion is worth something. I admit that there might be some good things in all the changes -- I do not pretend I have analyzed every one -- but if they are there then I think they should be submitted one by one after seeking consensus -- after removal. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The additions all come from reliable third-party sources. Please edit anywhere they did not reflect the sources correctly, or tag for questions or conflicts with any other reliable sources. If necessary, we can add refquotes. Llll5032 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

He was a friend of the American Spectator's founder (see [6]), but additional verification would be welcome about whether he was a co-founder. Llll5032 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to get consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited a couple of phrases you objected to, while we discuss and verify. Llll5032 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I added some more sources, so that many claims now have at least two high-quality RS. Llll5032 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

All right. Does anyone else think we should reject the third-party assessments by well-reviewed books and reliable sources marked green at WP:RSP? Llll5032 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lill5032 has done another 15-20 edits on 16-17 August 2022. I haven't the energy to go through them. Does anyone? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of the editing is in response to your comments. The article now cites more sources, including the Observer article that you cited in your first comment, and it omits two statements that you questioned. I hope you consider those edits to be improvements that could help bring us closer to WP:CONSENSUS and respect your valid BLP concerns. Llll5032 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Coining of alternative right

The article currently says Spencer first coined the term "alternative right" around 2008, for a Taki's headline he devised for an article by Kevin DeAnna about the development of a new, less neo-conservative, more racialist politics emerging in the conservative movement. This term was later adopted and shortened to "alt-right".[21][24] citing David Neiwert and SPLC. This is dubious. Jacob Siegel writes Spencer claims that he’s the one who actually invented the name “alternative right.” He says he came up with it as a headline for Gottfried’s speech, which never uses the words, when he published it in Taki’s Magazine, where he worked as an editor. Gottfried insists they “co-created” the name. Paul Gottfried's article is dated December 1, 2008. Kevin DeAnna's article is dated July 26, 2009. So the bit about Spencer is contested, the bit about DeAnna is false, and I don't see that this is necessary for the article anyway. I intend to remove it. But first I'm checking whether others think otherwise. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is some dispute between Spencer and Gottfried (both of whom worked for Taki's magazine) over credit for the term, then this article can simply summarize the available RS better. Llll5032 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, Peter Gulutzan, why did you revert these edits? Did you intend to revert all of the edits? Llll5032 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Re the coining: I can't get a summary of what David Neiwert actually said since I don't have the book, I can't see any use for a summary of what SPLC said since it doesn't mention these details, so the available possible source that I see is Jacob Siegel's article in Tablet (magazine). Could you make a specific proposal what wording and citing you think would be better than removing? Re the reversion: if you wish to discuss the removal of "Indeed," preceding "Spencer". then I may see your point but it may become moot once the whole thing is removed or changed; if you wish to discuss all of the reversion, perhaps we could do so in a separate thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The description of the coining of "alternative right" in the History section was longstanding. Do you have a specific objection to any of the other recent edits that you reverted, aside from the inclusion of the alt-right coining at the top? Llll5032 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The heading of this thread is "Coining of alternative right" because that's the topic. Since you want to discuss something else, I'll make a new thread with heading "Edits on 28 August 2023".

Back on this topic, does anyone else have something to say? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This academic source published in 2023 summarizes some other RS and clarifies the history more, so I added it to the article.

I proposed removal, you expanded instead, with what looks like a wrong attribution and an odd insertion of the word "notably". Perhaps you could quote here what that "academic source" says specifically about Paul Gottfried's speech and Kevin DeAnna's article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you insert tags into the article about statements in that sentence that fail verification? Perhaps they could be addressed individually. Llll5032 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I added another academic ref with context and removed the De Anna claim. In my opinion, the history has too many RS to be removed, but I agree with you that all facts must be verifiable. Can you add tags for other dubious statements? That may lead to faster consensus (per WP:EDITCON, "most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position"). Llll5032 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You left out the first part of that WP:EDITCON sentence, i.e. "Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, ...". WP:EDITCON also has a bit about how all edits should be explained. Also your expansions are not minor. I pointed to the Jacob Siegel article which says alternative right wasn't in the speech, but you're saying it was. In other places e.g. here I see that Mr Gottfried was a founder, but you're saying he's a co-founder. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the founding of the club, The Village Voice article lists Spencer as a board member, and Hartzell writes, "In 2008, Gottfried joined forces with Richard Spencer ... to form the H. L. Mencken club. Gottfried and Spencer imagined the Mencken Club ..." Llll5032 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the speech, Hartzell says "the formation of a far-right pro-white group was first made using the language of an “alternative right", with a "brief keynote address titled “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right" (p. 17-19). Moffitt says (p. 4) that there is "some disagreement about who coined the term 'alt-right'" but that it was either Gottfried or Spencer. As you noted, the Tablet article says, "Spencer claims that he’s the one who actually invented the name “alternative right.” He says he came up with it as a headline for Gottfried’s speech, which never uses the words, when he published it in Taki’s Magazine, where he worked as an editor. Gottfried insists they 'co-created' the name." [7]

I have tried to resolve the questions above with these edits, based on the academic sources and the Tablet article you cited. Peter Gulutzan, can you edit or tag it for any problems that you see? Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The false or dubious statements are gone now. My preference would still be to remove, but if nobody else cares then this is over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Gulutzan. Although we have disagreed about inclusion and perhaps some Wikipedia policies, I appreciate that your questioning about this matter helped align the article with RS and the known facts. Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Edits on 28 August 2023

Today Llll5032 made a series of edits. Initially I tried to revert only the changes to the lead but that didn't work properly so I quickly self-reverted the revert then reverted the series with edit summary = "Undid series of bold edits by Llll5032, which I believe did not in general improve the article. We have a talk page where specific major additions to the lead could be discussed and consensus could be sought." In the thread just above this, "Coining of alternate right", Llll5032 asked me: "Do you have a specific objection to any of the other recent edits that you reverted, aside from the inclusion of the alt-right coining at the top?" Answers: my objection was stated in the edit summary, I did not revert the inclusion of the alt-right coining at the top (so far as I can tell) (maybe we define "revert" or "top" differently). One problem that I see is that adding some material that was similar to something in the body, but not other material that was similar to something in the body, is a choice to emphasize. If there are specific edits in the series that anyone else supports or opposes, I hope they will look at the diffs and say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this section to the talk page. I do not understand your objections exactly. So as suggested by WP:BRB ("Bold, revert, bold again" and "bold, discuss, bold") and WP:REVRESTORE ("Restoring part of a reverted edit is a recommended practice in online collaborative writing"), I restored edits that lacked specific objections, while keeping additional information out of the top for now. The bold-refine essay and WP:BRB have some guidance on how we can collaborate with fewer reverts, even if there are disagreements. Regarding what is included in the top, do you agree that we should follow MOS:LEADREL and WP:BESTSOURCES, and emphasize the aspects that are given the most weight by high-quality independent sources? Llll5032 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again you have re-inserted your preferred version. So far we have one opposing and zero supporting, let's see whether that changes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Trying different edits is what WP:BRB suggests. If you oppose this new, more limited edit, then can you specify what you oppose about it? Llll5032 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't care how you interpret that essay but my initial reaction was overblown, the "more limited edit" does not seem to contain the same emphasis, so I no longer object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Gulutzan. Would you like to discuss additions to the top two paragraphs also? Multiple independent RS in this article's History section describe Taki's Magazine in the naming of the alternative right and the announcement of the Proud Boys. Taki's Magazine is included in both of those Wikipedia articles, and is in the second paragraph of the Proud Boys article. Should those events be included in the top of this article, and why or why not? Llll5032 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

For the naming of the alternative right, I'll wait if there are more comments in the above thread "Coining of alternative right". For the Proud Boys article, I oppose re-inclusion in the lead. WP:LEADREL is saying "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" and the subject is Taki's Magazine not one article written after what the author says was the second meeting of one chapter of Proud Boys. The headline "Introducing: The Proud Boys" makes it seem grander than that, but WP:HEADLINE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that having other editors' opinions will be helpful. Regarding the announcement of the Proud Boys in Taki's Magazine, didn't their founder McInnes also continue to write about them in the magazine? Llll5032 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

He mentioned them here here here here here [8]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)