Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Arbitrary Break #7

Repeating what I said on WP:RS/N: I don't think anyone is disputing that Jared Taylor is a white nationalist. I also don't see how you can make a claim of notabiiity for him without describing him as a "white nationalist". Therefore, we must mention that in the lede sentence without weasel words like "described as". Does anyone disagree with the claim that he is a white nationalist, and that this fact should be mentioned as fact in the lede sentence? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I already tried something along those lines but was reverted. I'm going through the motions now hoping editors will understand the argument we've presented to make this BLP compliant. Look at the edit summary to see the GF attempts I've made to make this attack page BLP compliant. Tryptofish offered the most neutral suggestion, so hopefully the lead can be modified without elevating this issue to the relevant noticeboard. I can't bear the sound of dentist's drill. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that he is a white nationalist (and a white supremacist). I am also not a reliable source. Without meaning to be coy, this is not a fact in the same manner as a scientific fact. It's the kind of attribution that is covered at WP:TERRORIST. As for notability, we certainly would have to base that on the fact that sources clearly say that he is one. I also think that Atsme is incorrect to call the present version of the page an attack page (and I'm watchlisting, so there is no need to keep pinging me). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

from White nationalism: "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity." - this is, basically, how Taylor describes himself in sympathetic media when he calls himself a "race realist". I think "white nationalist" is a fact in the same way that the fact that "a cheetah is a type of cat" is a fact, especially if nobody is willing to personally object. Taylor objects to "white supremacist" and that term is more inflammatory so I'm not prepared to claim that "he is a white supremacist" is a fact, but I am prepared to do so for "white nationalist". Power~enwiki (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I really am not trying to be difficult here, and I'm cringing at how what I'm about to say can be misconstrued as "alternative facts". I don't think that "white nationalist" is a fact in the same way that "the atomic weight of carbon is 12" is a fact, or even in the way that "climate change denial is pseudoscience" is a fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

• id be happy with the above. I don't think the article should refer specifically to him as a white supremacist, but the word has been used so frequently in connection with him and is so well sourced, that it would be wrong to omit this information for the sake of diluting the tone of the page. It's relevant, it's important and an unconnected reader should have access to the information via Wikipedia. For this reason the term should apply to the media with which he is associated. No attribution is required in the lede, however they should be made clear in the body of the article as they transfer notability. Edaham (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's good! I'm fine with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Me, too!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

More broadly, I think that's an excellent approach: when writing in Wikipedia's voice, call the organizations and publications etc. "white supremacist" and "white nationalist". That's entirely clear and non-weasely, without actually calling the person that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

there's an argument which applies to authors, which I mentioned in an earlier post. I think it applies here. Stephen king isn't noted as a horrible person, he's noted as a writer of horror. If he were to insist that it were called metaphysical alternativism, Doubleday and other publishers would probably insist on using the term horror along with what ever adjectives further distinguish the work from others in its category. This is often the case when authors disagree with the category into which they've been put. As Wikipedia editors we would probably pick the opinions of the publishers and press over that of the author's insistence on an alternative name, while noting his or her objection. Nothing about this case is peculiar in that respect, and there's no reason not to follow the same principle. White supremacist isn't a typical adjective for a body of work, but it's one which is frequently used when referring to his publications. It's sourced and there's no need to be shy about imparting that information . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that my omission of the other paragraph in the lede was got the sake of brevity. I don't think it should be removed. Edaham (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with describing (only) the publication as white-supremacist is that this doesn't give proper regard to the wealth of sources that describe the person as a white supremacist. It's not hard to understand that some editors might prefer this, and it would be appropriate for an article on the publication -- but the issue in this BLP is the person. Given previous RfCs, I'll also advise against any quick adoption of that idea via a quick "consensus". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Read from the beginning - all of the concerns have already been discussed in their entirety. Read WP:LABEL which is unambiguous and indisputable, doesn't matter how many sources of "opinion" are mentioned. It's still opinion. If you disagree, state the specific statement in the RS that substantiates the label as fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I can put a suggestion on the table if only for the sake of keeping the debate moving into new territory: We attribute quotes made about the author to whoever made them, while omitting them when referring to organizations the subject may have founded, which are unambiguously described in a certain manner. Edaham (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Read from the beginning - all of the concerns have already been discussed in their entirety. Uh, no they haven't. Numerous high a quality sources have been presented that not only unequivocally describe him as a supremacist, but also describe him one of the most prominent white supremacist leaders of the the day. IMO the proposed wording above softpedals that to an unacceptable degree. And I agree with nomo that we should avoid hasty declarations of a consensus before more of the editors who commented above have weighed in. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You can dispute PAGs all you want...this can go on forever in discussion...but it won't because we have BLP policy. You might want to read it again because when the lead is changed, you may want to think twice about violating it...or perhaps you'd like to call an RfC, or go through some other means of DR? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"other editors...have weighed in" - I was going to say exactly the same thing. My contribution is a preliminary wording to which others will wish to add. Not looking for speedy anything here. We aren't working to a deadline. Let's take our time and get this right Edaham (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem with that proposed lead is that it suggests that Jared Taylor is primarily know for being "the founder and editor of American Renaissance" - and that's ridiculous. American Renaissance is barely known; Jared Taylor is far more well-known. Why is he more well-known? Because he's a white supremacist. You can dress it up any way you want - yes, the white supremacist movement has made a move towards calling themselves "white nationalists" in an effort to become more palatable, that's well-sourced as well, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that reliable sources, repeatedly and across the board, identify Jared Taylor as a white supremacist. It's literally what makes him notable enough to have an article here in the first place. I take issue with the opinion that having that in the lead is defamatory - if Jared Taylor doesn't like being called a white supremacist by reliable sources, he shouldn't publicly espouse white supremacist positions. Dylann Roof has been far less public about his opinions on race; does anyone have a problem with the lead sentence of his article? Rockypedia (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I only addressed one sentence in the article. I've got no problem with the word WS being attributed to the works and not the man but as a summary of his notability it is lacking. Rather than theorize though, at what I hope is the penultimate juncture in this discussion, can you write a new proposed lead with the amendments you wish to make. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The current lead is the result of several long discussions and at least one very thorough RfC; absent any new information since that RfC, I think the lead is fine as is. I think everyone who isn't familiar with the points made during that RfC should go into the talk page archive and read it. It's exhaustively complete, and resulted in an overwhelming consensus. We didn't do that RfC just for fun. Two or three editors coming in here and suddenly wishing to change the lead against that consensus would be wrong. Rockypedia (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"American Renaissance is barely known." If that's the case, why does the American Renaissance (Magazine) wikipedia page exist? Moreover, being a white supremacist doesn't make you notable. There are thousands of white supremacists nobody has ever heard of. Also, Taylor has never espoused white supremacist views. A reliable source called the "dictionary" shows this. As for Roof, if it's the same for him, I also have a problem with that. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the amount of controversy surrounding this page, I propose that any anon IP be barred from discussion, as it's very possible that IP editors could easily be sockpuppets of registered editors attempting to bolster their case with fake support. Rockypedia (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

agree 100% :D but that's not going to get passed unfortunately. I also agree with the reasons for his notability but have no problem with attributing labels to his actions, influences and works. I also have no problem with the current version so at least I'll be happy whatever the outcome. It looks like that actually puts me out of the debate! So happy editing folks! Edaham (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's clear we have the majority thinking the sources are fine with one editor and an IP that don't get it. Although I'm not a fan of quotes....perhaps we should just quote this gentleman a bit. Explain that he believes blacks have lower IQ and are more promiscuous ...that Asians have a better society etc. White supremacist and there out dated racial views are very easy to spot. Just recently had to explain this sort of problem at American ancestry that was titled American ethnicity. Moxy (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Who made that determination? You, Moxy? Since you are so anxious to IAR, and think it's ok to be noncompliant with BLP, NPOV and MOS, all of which have been pointed out here as they relate to this topic, and on RS/N numerous times, are you willing to discuss it at AN/I knowing what WP:LABEL and WP:BLP prescribe? Just curious... are you so firm in your belief that you are willing to edit war over it? I say let's hold an RfC first, and see if a real consensus can be reached because the "no consensus" decision that was mentioned above only prolongs the argument. I strongly believe that WP:PAG will prevail if we elevate this discussion, hopefully without sacrificing any editor to a block for edit warring. Do you at least agree with that? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

According to every single editor that has weighed in so far, except for you, atsme, the page is already in line with WP:PAG, so it already has "prevailed", whatever that means. It's clear to me that you mean you will prevail, but I find that highly unlikely, as multiple editors have already pointed out the flaws in your arguments to whitewash Taylor's description of what he's most notable for. However, you certainly have every right to start an RfC, no one is stopping you, and you can drop the BS about "sacrificing any editor to a block for edit warring" - that's "such crap", to use your own words. Start the RfC, already, and stop wasting your time arguing in circles. Or if you prefer, WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockypedia (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

• Just in case it wasn't already clear, I never intended my own comments in this section to be any kind of declaration of consensus – just stating my own views of what would be best for this page. I would also suggest that the best arguments are those that actually address the proposal for a new lead, rather than just saying that previous consensus should be kept stable (compare WP:CCC). It also seems to me that many editors are being excessively rigid in their positions, and that is not helpful. About the ongoing arguments that it is necessary to describe the person rather than the publication, it seems to me that anyone who is the founder of a supremacist publication is going to be a supremacist themselves, and it would be really bizarre if someone who rejects supremacism would nonetheless found such a publication. And if the person is notable for their supremacist views, it's worth considering how anyone found out about those views. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Washington Times

The article, in an unsourced claim, says Taylor worked as a news editor for The Washington Times in 1974-75. The Washington Times was founded in 1982, so that's impossible. The date might be wrong (which would throw off the chronology in that section), or he worked for another newspaper during that time period, but in any case the claim is flatly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.208.18.114 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2017‎ (UTC)

The claim is sourced to the Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History and I've verified the claim is in the source. I think there are two possibilities, the source is wrong, or that it's talking about a different paper with the similar name, e.g. Washington Times-Herald (Indiana). For now I'll remove the wiki links and add a dubious claim until we can sort it out. — Strongjam (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's odd, but it's also listed in his bio at American Renaissance : "1974–1975: News Editor, Washington Times (now defunct). ". Was there another Washington Times? It could be a typo, but I would think his own website would have his bio correct. Nblund ^talk 01:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There's been other Washington Times, but I'm having a hard time finding any that were active in the 70s. Doesn't seem to have been a notable paper. Maybe someone with access to a good newspaper archive could find it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the information in Washington Times-Herald (Indiana), it does not appear that either that publication or any of its antecedents was or were ever called "Washington Times". Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• It appears to me that Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History, published in 2011, merely copied that info from Taylor's own website or took his word for it, since no explanation is given in the book what the publication actually was. I'm going to ask DGG if he can verify the existence of a Washington Times that was extant in 1974, and what exactly it was. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

From The Washington Post: "In 1954, the newspaper consolidated its position by acquiring and merging with its last morning rival, the Washington Times-Herald.[30] (The combined paper was officially named The Washington Post and Times-Herald until 1973, although the Times-Herald portion of the nameplate became less and less prominent after the 1950s.) The merger left the Post with two remaining local competitors, the afternoon Washington Star (Evening Star) and The Washington Daily News, which merged in 1972 and folded in 1981." No sign of a "Washington Times" in 1974 or 75.Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Unless it was some sort of underground freebie, there was definitely no Washington Times before the Unification Church established it in the early '80s. Times-Herald was gone from the Post's nameplate by '74, but that's beside the point: no one would have ever said they worked for the Times-Herald, let alone the Times, 20 years after the takeover (which is what it was, not really a merger). If we want to be generous, we can assume that it was a typo and meant to say either '84 or '94, but I'd suggest just removing it per failed verification. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's no typo; it's straight out of Taylor's own bio on his own website. I agree we should probably delete it or comment it out until more information is at hand. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, I know. I presume that Taylor's own website isn't magically exempt from typos. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a chronological CV; there's no way the decade could have been mistyped (twice!). That's in addition to the facts that in subsequent decades he had much more important positions at other publications, and that no one leaves a typo on their own CV on their own website for 5+ years. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Purely a guess, but it may possibly have been intended to efer to the Washington Star, a defunct newspaper that ceased publication for economic reasons in 1981. The Washington Times was started as a separate enterprise in 1982. Both are/were known as gnerally supporting conservative politics. In any case the possible position is trivial in the context of the overall bio, as Taylor own activities were not significantly political until the 1990s, and best omitted unless there is actual verification of what was intended. I don't personally feel it is worth the research. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not worth it, I agree, but it's worth saying—The Washington Star bore zero resemblance to The Washington Times. The former was a thoroughly reputable newspaper whose conservative-leaning editorial stance was kept fully separate from its news reporting (which, incidentally, broke the Watergate burglary story). The latter paper...well, it's different in every particular. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The online CV has read "Washington Times" for more than 5 years [1], so we can safely assume that it was never intended to say anything different. Since at this point we don't know where Taylor was living in 1974, and since there are hundreds of places called "Washington" in the U.S., whatever the publication was it was probably of little or no importance. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this was added as part of Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2#Journalist. At one point the first sentence described him as a journalist without any further explanation. This bit about his brief former career made sense at the time, but the lede is better now, and this can be discarded. Some source do call him a journalist, but I agree that it's cryptic and basically irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to describe American Renaissance in the article

Right now it's a mere passing mention. Although it has its own wiki article, there needs to be at least a short summary here as well. The reader should not have to go to an entirely different article to find out about it. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I very much hope you don't mind my altering your post to link to the correct page American Renaissance is a stylistic period. Edaham (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Section on Racial Views

Regarding this edit: The section extensively and uncritically quotes or paraphrases Taylor's own characterization of his views and his work, which raises major neutrality issues. Statements like: "Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests" are vague to the point of being meaningless: what are those interests? Why does Taylor believe they exist? This is his sales-pitch, but it doesn't really inform readers about his views on anything. It's akin to saying that "Barack Obama believes in equal opportunity for all Americans", it might work on the campaign stump, but it would be unacceptable for Wikipedia to characterize his policy views that way.

The section needs to begin with clear, euphemism-free descriptions of his stated beliefs from reliable sources, before moving on to his own characterizations. Taylor believes that human beings can be categorized in to discrete racial categories, that racial differences are biologically ingrained in the human species, and that those innate racial differences are fundamental for understanding human history and development. These views fall under a paradigm called "scientific racism", which is widely rejected by mainstream experts.

Taylor also believes that society works better when racial groups have minimal contact with each other. He supports changing law and practices in order to ensure this. This is called "racial segregation". There seems to be little ambiguity here regarding the definitions. It does readers a disservice to pretend these are novel beliefs.

Aside from that, there were some changes to wording and ordering that seem uncontroversial and unrelated to any of these issues, a revert seems unhelpful. I'm happy to make changes within reason, but I have a hard time seeing, how the section, as currently written, could possibly conform to NPOV or to the guidelines on how to characterize fringe views.

Nblund ^talk 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two versions, side-by-side. It may be helpful to compare them this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Existing version Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests, and that it is intellectually valid for them to protect these interests; he sees it as anomalous that non-Hispanic whites have allowed people of other races to organize themselves politically while not doing so themselves. His journal American Renaissance was founded to provide such a voice for white interests. Writing in that journal in 2005, he stated, ""Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." Taylor is noted as saying, "Whites deserve a homeland," and when questioned about the new US immigration laws passed in 1965, under the Hart-Celler Act, said that "Whites are making a terrible mistake by setting in motion forces that will reduce them to a minority." Taylor believes in a general correlation between race and intelligence, where blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter".

Proposed revision Taylor is a proponent of scientific racism, and racial segregation. Taylor argues that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter". Taylor describes himself as an advocate for white interests. He states that his journal, American Renaissance, was founded to provide such a voice for white interests, and argues that it's work is analogous to other interest groups that advocate for ethnic or racial groups. Writing in that journal in 2005, he stated, ""Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." Taylor supports immigration policies that would favor white immigrants over other groups. Taylor is noted as saying, "Whites deserve a homeland," and when questioned about the US immigration laws passed in 1965, under the Hart-Celler Act, said that "Whites are making a terrible mistake by setting in motion forces that will reduce them to a minority."

Citations
References

I think I like the proposed revision better. It uses more direct language, and I'm not seeing any editorializing in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the word, "ensure," in the sentence, "he supports changing law and practices in order to ensure this." Taylor does support changing law and practices, but I would use the word "encourage" instead. Taylor has stated he believes in freedom of association, but believes that without laws forcing diversity on people, whether it's in the workplace or with immigration, the vast majority of people will naturally stick to associating with members of their own race. He has said he wants to put an end to immigration and he wants it to be legal for employers to discriminate. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the actual quotes he said, and they're nothing like what the article claims he said. Where is the quote wherein he argues that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites? The quote I read was "“Races are different. Some races are better at some things than others”, he said. I want to read his words so I can veryify that he actually said those things - he says he didn't - so we take a politically motivated news source and label him as white supremacist, and scientific racist? That's hogwash. I don't like either version quite frankly - both look like racial discrimination against him for being white. Wow. I guess it depends on whose view is supporting segregation and one's definition of "racism" or "supremacy". What about this, and this, and this for starters? Who supports it? Better yet, read this Harvard article about bias in Wikipedia. I'm not making this stuff up. Bottomline, what does it all mean to WP, and to the quality of our articles, which should not be written like a term paper filled with pseudoscientific claims that must be cited to MEDRS (and they're not, they're cited to The Guardian). Over half of our readers may very well find such articles offensive, and that hurts the integrity of the project. NPOV is not offensive. We are not here to right great wrongs, to apologize for what happened hundreds of years ago, to advocate for one race over another, or turn a BLP into an attack page because of political and/or racial differences. We state facts in WP that are supported by RS, not opinions that are trying to be stated as facts in Wiki voice. If you can't see it, then you're too close to the topic, and that creates issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Best to stick to policies and guidelines, which tell us not to do this kind of original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, the quote where Taylor says that he believes that black people are less intelligent than whites it cited to "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America", by Carol Swain, not the Guardian. I didn't write it, it comes from the version you restored. I don't have access to Swain's book, but it's entirely consistent with his other statements on this topic. If your problem is with that quote, I think we could certainly find a different one, but there's really no question that he promotes the view that black people are less intelligent that white people, and Taylor himself acknowledges that that viewpoint is overwhelmingly rejected my mainstream science.

None of this explains why you reverted other portions of the edit. Nblund ^talk 21:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I said in the revert edit summary, I think the new wording is dramatically better. It would be nice to retain Race and intelligence as a wikilink, and that does seem like the place to do that, but this is a very minor quibble. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, maybe if you hear it from me, you will take it seriously. Your arguments are becoming unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just read the article's history and revisions by Grayfell and Atsme. There's some blatant whitewashing going on there. Thanks to Grayfell for cleaning that up. Putting together all of the pieces from various talk pages along with the attempts to convert this article into white pride sales media, I very much hope this isn't a collaborative attempt to force a point of view onto this page. That would have been a serious waste of editor's time. Not least of all of Lou Sander's, who has hundreds of battle ships to write about and of Atsme who has super cool fish to photograph ~ hopefully not running into any battle ships at the time, otherwise they'd have a genuine reason to write about each other. I think it's time to get back to work folks. The proposed version in this section works - for what it's worth Edaham (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant whitewashing? Edaham, are you referring to me removing 2 BLP violations twice, and adding a POV tag that was wrongfully removed? That's what you call whitewashing?

Tryp, I'm sorry if you feel my arguments are becoming unreasonable, Why should anyone argue about labeling the guy a white supremacist in the lead, and then in the body quote him saying, "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure...." Now that statement supports his white supremacy doesn't it, and I shouldn't argue because everybody is right and I'm wrong, right?

How many times have we heard "consensus"? Well I went looking through the archives to find that consensus, and couldn't even find that an RfC was held, so where is it? C'mon, cough it up.

Arguing is the last thing I want to do - I just want you to listen to what I'm saying about RS starting with Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist". For white supremacist, we have the great conspiracy theorist, Michael_Newton_(author), who is not an academic, rather he's just a proficient author of lots of books about everything, expert that he is. Then we have the NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. Surely that has nothing to do with any political bias, right?

Biased sources can certainly be RS - no argument there - but not for this BLP with regards to statements of fact in WP voice. My position hasn't changed - you just keep ignoring it despite it being policy. Don't believe me? Read WP:REDFLAG - it's V policy which states clearly: "or those with an apparent conflict of interest;" Carol M. Swain is also cited in this BLP, and she wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Now that's a NPOV right there - not a lick of bias.

And then we have SPLC and ADL - read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, [2] - tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias - a real live RS. Gee. My arguments are so unreasonable. Maybe I've overlooked the one unreasonable comment I may have made, so please point it out for me. Could it be where I cited the Harvard article above about bias? Could it have been the links that demonstrate purposeful segregation on university campuses? I apologize if those are unreasonable. I just thought the activity coincided with other views about segregation that cause people to be labeled white supremacists, or along that same line. I agree they are not useful sources for this BLP - but they did make a point - and I apologize. I won't add anymore links that can't be cited to this BLP.

I have no problem with the use of quotes this guy made as long they're used in the context they were originally intended and cited to a RS - but then, if the source actually is reliable, the quotes won't be out of context, will they? Don't tell me MSM cherry-picked quotes for bait-click or to make him look worse than what he already is - he doesn't need any help for that. All we have to do is provide factual information and our readers will be able to see what he is or isn't. Our job is not to destroy the guy's life because his ideology is highly unpopular and even hated by many. Imagine what it was like to get Hitler promoted to GA.

I'll just end the subject of me being unreasonable with a little sampling of what I've endured simply for staying true to WP:PAGs: 8-11-2017, and this one 8-12-2017. But I'm the one being unreasonable. Gee...thanks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

you haven't endured anything. You've been heavily criticized for trying to remove sourced material to lessen the perceived (by you) impact and accuracy of an article, using intentionally erroneous application of policies and threats from the beginning. If you don't like me making jokes about it, don't be funny. Edaham (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's YOUR opinion - and my advice to you is to stop talking about editors and focus on content because the policies are clear...and so are your PAs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Its clear your interpretation or how our P/Gs should guide us in this case has been rejected by the vast majority here. I suggests that its best to move on or request further input by a new set of editors (RfC).--Moxy (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Proposed version is clearer to read and better organized. The info is sourced and the sources appear to support it (from what I can tell). I'd like to see another source for the segregation claim and found a source from an interview with him on NPR ([3], click the transcript button to read). Arguments above about bias from the sources seems to be digging to find a reason to reject them. Sources are allowed to be biased (WP:BIASED); we aren't (WP:NPOV). That said, caution appears to have been taken with these sources by providing quotes when possible. If there were others RS providing conflicting information, we'd have an issue. I see no reason prima facia to not go with the pro proposed text. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Proposed version is far clearer, well-sourced, and an improvement. No policy-based reason was advanced for the reversion of this edit. Neutrality^talk 07:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Proposed version A bit late, but I see this isn't closed and I just wanted to weigh in with my support for the proposed version, which seems to be the current version although I haven't checked all the details. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why I removed "White supremacist"

If Jared Taylor didn't speak about this himself, it would have been ok, but in this interview with CNN mr. Taylor explains why he isn't a white supremacist, making the distinction between a nationalist and a supremacist: https://youtube.com/Ol6GA4dMZw4

Skip to 7:39, the part in which the subject is explained.

Now you can add these accusations of white supremacy, I 'd suggest something like: Jared Taylor is been accused of white supremacist sympathies", but it would be very unfair after he strongly distantiates himself from this ideology and explaining why he isn't part of it, to call him a white supremacist as if that is objective to do so. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pls see the ongoing discussion above Talk:Jared Taylor#RfC labeling in lede.--Moxy (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

YouTube demonetization

Apparently YouTube disabled most features at one of his videos: [4]. I believe this is OR and I can't find any RS so I don't know if it's notable for this article, or maybe for Censorship of YouTube#Advertiser-friendly content. Wumbolo (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a strong consensus to support Option A i.e. to maintain the status quo.WP:NPOV does not seem to be a good argument against the abundance of rel. sources using the qualifiers.As a side-note, Aquillion's arguments describes the scenario quite nicely.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Respondents, please choose whether the lede shall be written as proposed in "Option A" (which is the current version), or "Option B" or "Option C"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Question changed to a more neutral version by Winged Blades ^Godric at 11:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

• B - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.[4] He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

• C - Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American activist, writer, and editor, who has been described as a white nationalist and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.[4] He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Survey

• C - as OP, I am concerned that the lede as currently written is noncompliant with WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Again I am adding the authors/sources which are noncompliant with WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL for stating opinon in Wiki voice as a statement of fact:

DO NOT REMOVE information from my comment section.

1. Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist".
2. Michael_Newton_(author), not an academic, he writes about conspiracy theories, and is a prolific author who has written lots of books about everything.
3. NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. Evidence of bias in the NYTimes Political section: supported the Dem nominee Hillary Clinton, and [5].
4. Carol M. Swain regarding "opinion not fact" which is clearly reflected in the sources used per the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? She also wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Biased opinion.
5. SPLC and ADL, questionable and not a RS for statement of fact because they are advocacies: read the last paragraphs in the Britannica here and here. Britannica is a tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias and they dispute the reliability of those two sources. With research to verify context and sources cited by the sources cited here, you will find that many of them cite SPLC & ADL.^{Atsme📞📧} 04:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A - He is a white supremacist, full stop. And he is described as such by a very large number of reliable sources. Some examples:

1. The New York Times calls him "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists"
2. This academic encyclopedia calls him a "well known white supremacist/seperatist."
3. This academic monograph by an expert on the subject calls him a "Virignia White Supremacist."
4. Another Academic encyclopedia calls him a "major force in white supremacist circles."
5. The Times Higher Education Supplement calls him "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement.
6. The Guardian describes him as "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist"
7. The Independent describes him as "a prominent white supremacist"
8. Here is another academic work that calls him a white supremacist unequivocally. As with most of the sources above, it does so without attributing it to the Southern Poverty Law Center or referencing them, treating the identification as fact.

See the existing discussions above for even more sources, and extensive discussions. There is no doubt about this, per some of the most reliable and most authoritative sources available. Option A is a bit awkwardly worded and can be improved, but is the only option that doesn't softpedal the fact that Taylor is a white supremacist, and that that is what he's primarily notable for. Anything less than that that is a POV whitewash. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• C - as the BLP (and some others) contest this label, and this label has mainly been stated by left of center outlets. It would be best to attribute the label even if a wide range of sources call him such.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A - the part about being led to answer yes to writing opinions as statement of fact etc - blah blah blah - i.e. Wiki lawyering in order to poison the well is spurious. We aren't stating opinions as fact; we are writing down in terms clear to the reader, what has been unanimously reported by a preponderance of sources. Trying to make people feel that they are somehow contravening wiki policy by picking one of the options is not a the way to open an RfC. It does however fall in line with the rather transparent technique of trying to make people worried about doing the right thing. Edaham (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A, per Fyddlestix, and per the wide range of sources that are unequivocal on this matter. The other two options are unacceptable insofar as they give the impression that it's really only the SPLC that thinks Taylor is a white supremacist -- this is a blatant distortion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A, of course, this shouldn't even be up for discussion. Richard Spencer is described as a white nationalist, as is David Duke and a host of others. When one expresses a racist point-of-view, then one is described as such. Factually. TheValeyard (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So is a racist who thinks whites are inferior a "white supremacist?" Factually, racism is not synonymous with white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A, no reason to dismiss reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A our purpose is to regurgitate the sources .....it's clear what all the sources say.--Moxy (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• D Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and described as a white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

^^^Not bad, Slatersteven and inline text attribution would fit nicely. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

*Comment The RfC question is not phrased neutrally and I suggest it be reworded. Possible recordings are something like, "which of the following options best reflect the reliable sources?" Or "do reliable sources support calling Taylor a white supremacist?" Ca2james (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Adding: the problem with the RfC question, as others have pointed out, is that it presupposes that the issue is opinions written as statement of fact in WP voice but then does not provide options that address that issue... A strawman argument, as it were. Suggest rewriting the question and/or reformatting the survey. Ca2james (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC) strike comment as RFC question has been changed. Ca2james (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• A Although I also proposed an alternate wording that received no traction. I'm not bitter. I promise. Nblund ^talk 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A although, as I noted below, this is a straw man RfC that should be struck immediately for not being phrased in a neutral manner. The proposer, Atsme📞📧, is not at all concerned with violations of Wikipedia policy; he is only concerned with whitewashing the description of Taylor to make him seem more mainstream, and the proof of this is in his straw-man RfC: the description of Taylor is not an opinion. It is a fact, verified by dozens of reliable sources. Atsme's blatant lies that he is "concerned" are abhorrent, as his true purpose is simply to improve Taylor's reputation, and if you disagree with that, read the guidelines on forming an RfC, then read Atsme's RfC phrasing again, and you tell me if he's trying to be neutral. Should be struck at once, even though he's battling to whitewash Taylor's description and he's going to lose here anyway. Doesn't matter, though - the RfC is still invalid, and should be struck as a matter of principle. Rockypedia (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A - there's a clear consensus against Atsme, I see no reason to strike this RfC on technical errors made by Atsme. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We have 7 days left - let the damn RfC do its job, and stop with the fallacious claims of consensus. Consensus is what this RfC will represent, so stop already. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A - overwhelmingly supported by the reliable sources, including university press-published books, and not contradicted by any reliable sources. The constant questioning of what the reliable sources say, accompanied by walls of text, is getting tedious. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A per the existing sources as well as findings by Fyddlestix above. The labels are widely ascribed by multiple RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option D I would say "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American author and spokesperson whose focus is the topic of race." Being an author/spokesperson is what makes him notable; there are thousands of non-notable white supremacists. Let the readers draw their own conclusions from neutral text. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• This RfC has been constructed very, very badly. The opening question assumes something that the RfC should actually be asking: whether the characterizations are "opinions" or "facts". In this context, I can very much understand why so many editors are endorsing Option A. Although I have suggested some possibilities involving "described as" in earlier talk, I have also seen what I accept as convincing rebuttals to what I had suggested. And the discussions leading to this RfC have involved way too much in the way of editors digging in without considering compromise. So, I am endorsing something pretty much like what another editor already proposed in talk: Option D2:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication. He is an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

That is just like Option B, but with "a magazine described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as" deleted from the first sentence. (And which was actually supported by the editor who opened this RfC, in earlier talk.) As long as the publication, rather than the person, is identified as white supremacist, we don't need to trip all over ourselves to say "described as". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Tryp - you need to change it to Option E as there is already an Option D above unless Option D becomes the "catch-all". ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• The absurdly non-neutral framing shouldn't be ignored, but Option A is fine. The lede should indicate why he is notable and avoid using weasel words or euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A per Fyddlestix. The reliable sources are clear that he is a white supremacist. There are no sources saying he isn't one so I find it unecessary to note that he is "described as" one (which implies that the label isn't universal... Which it is). I find the arguments that the RS are not reliable to be unconvincing. I would also be fine with option D2 as a second choice but oppose any wording using the "described as" phrase. I'm expressing my opinion even though I think this RfC is non-neutral (as I commented above). Ca2james (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A as per Fyddlestix. This is not remotely a borderline issue, nor does it involve BLP. Reliable sources are effectively unanimous in describing an outspoken white supremacist as, yes, a white supremacist. That he disagrees with the reliable sources is not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A. The walls of text preceding this RfC, with their convoluted attempts to misapply policy, make me sad. Wikipedia is not aloof from the world, and the whitewashing of articles about enablers of violence and hatred should not be tolerated. If the sourcing is there—and in this case it clearly is—call it by its name. I've said this before on a talk page, although not for many years: if public figures don't want negative content in their Wikipedia articles, they shouldn't say or do things that guarantee exactly that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See what I mean? This is exactly the kind of comment that shows how misguided people are over here. What does "enabling violence and hatred" have to do with whether or not Taylor is a white supremacist? Your emotionally charged, subjective words make it clear you think wikipedia has some kind of moral obligation to be anything more than a totally neutral source of information. It doesn't. This is supposed to be an online, public-run encyclopedia. Just the facts. The only thing that is factual is that there is a narrative in the media that includes many people thinking he's a "white supremacist." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A -- although it may be worthwhile to state: "... white nationalist and white supremacist activist". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A The fact that the statement in the lede is overwhelmingly supported by multiple mainstream reliable sources means that this is not in WP voice, contrary to the phrasing of this RfC. First Light (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A Fiddlestyx's list of RS above is more than sufficient. Strangely, I don't see any countervailing sources being proffered. BLP does not requiere Wikipedia to assist in cosmetic clean-ups of reputation just because a living person doesn't like an accurate label of them or their views.--Carwil (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• option A Summarizes the very well sourced content in the body which is what the LEAD does; this is what he is notable for per many high quality sources and they are what we follow and give WEIGHT to, especially for a BLP. Under NPOV it is irrelevant if what high quality refs say is positive or negative, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE or tippy-toe around negative things, especially not when they are this well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A I have yet to see a WP:MAINSTREAM source which disputes the categorical identifiers therein contained. jps (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely, 100%, option C Unless you can find a source saying that he embraced the labels, labeling him as a white supremacist is obviously defamatory and could land Wikipedia in legal trouble. He has also been described as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist by different sources, and WP:YESPOV says "If different reliable sources make conflicting(which is defined as incompatible or at variance; contradictory) assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Calling him a white supremacist against his word would be a blatant violation of NPOV and WP:LIBEL. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 22:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Best strike the legal talk......some may see this as a threat to take action. I get your point (way off that it is) but others may not. --Moxy (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A per Fyddlestix showing that option A is well-sourced. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A. Clear as day, based on numerous reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option C is the only vaguely NPOV phrasing presented. Those of you opining in favor of the POV-drenched Option A need to revisit what NPOV is all about. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A. There is nothing substantial wrong with it as written. Reality may have a liberal bias but that doesn't mean that sources which accurately report on reality are unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) I feel this one is best. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A Summoned by a bot. I agree that option A could be rewritten for style, but I think it is important to have in that first sentence both "white nationalist" and "white supremacists" as cited in multiple reliable sources.Comatmebro (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• C: We've been over this before. "Supremacist", "racist", "nationalist", etc. are not occupations, they're points of view. Give his actual occupations first, then his views and which sources are characterizing them. Or given the PoVs in adjectival form as modifiers of occupational noun phrases. No one is notable only because they're a racist; there are hundreds of millions of racists. People are notable as racist writers, etc. Also, any construction like "... white nationalist and [described as a] white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication ..." is redundant, amateurish, and annoyingly brow-beating to the reader. Compress to "... white nationalist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication ...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C NPOV is a core principle of Wikipedia and must be upheld even when it makes us uncomfortable. CJK09 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C Better written than option B, adheres to neutrality unlike option A. Wikipedia doesn't call people white-supremacists, it refers to people who do. It doesn't call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, it cites people who do, and then, not in the lead sentence. Option A is an extraordinary breach of WP:NPOV. Cjhard (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Option A, although I would remove the words "a magazine often described as" for the same reason we're avoiding weasel words in the first part. There could be some tweaking, but overall we have to go with what the sources say - the other two options feel like they're engaging in WP:WEASEL words to blunt an accurate summary of the sources. Whether someone supports white supremacy or not is a factual statement, not an opinion; describing it as if it is just some people's opinions violates WP:NPOV. As an aside, I would note that options B and C are flatly unusable in their current form because they imply that his support for white supremacy is merely the opinion of the SPLC, when in fact we have numerous independent sources describing him as such. Note Fyddlestix's list above - we would have to independently mention all of those sources in the lead. For example, it'd probably end up something like "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance. He has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the New York Times, the Times Higher Education Supplement, The Guardian, The Independent, and numerous academic publications as a leading white supremacist." Providing in-text citation for only one of those would be misleading - if we go for in-text citations, we would have to mention all of them. The fact that this seems silly is because we wouldn't, normally, provide in-text citations for something with so many high-quality sources. (My assumption would be that options B and C single out the SPLC as the source because people find it particularly controversial; but, of course, even if it's true, that's utterly backwards.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Option A - by this point a ton of other people have articulated the reasons why. But let me just emphasize the two most important ones: 1) it's how he's described in sources and 2) it's what he is most notable for. If he wasn't a white nationalist and supremacist we wouldn't have an article on him. Volunteer Marek  04:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Why do you think Samuel Jared Taylor being a white nationalist/supremacist is an opinion instead of a fact? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP denies it and the RS used are opinions of those who have a COI, or opposing ideologies such as Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, which is cited for the label "white nationalist". For white supremacist, we have the great conspiracy theorist author, Michael_Newton_(author), who is not an academic, rather he's just a proficient author of lots of books about everything, expert that he is. The NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. While biased sources can certainly be RS - no argument there - they cannot be for this BLP as statements of fact in WP voice. Read WP:REDFLAG - it's V policy which states clearly: "or those with an apparent conflict of interest;" Another cited source is Carol M. Swain who wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." It is not NPOV. And then we have SPLC and ADL which are cited by the sources cited in several instances - read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, and [6] - tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think the NYTimes article, which leads with "Until recently, Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, had never supported a presidential candidate." is opinion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is in the political section during the 2016 election campaign in a news source that supported the Dem nominee and that has clearly shown a bias. To take it one step further regarding "opinion not fact" reflected in the sources used, I'll again point to Carol Swain. See the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You're not making much sense Atsme. A news article in the NYT is reliable, there's no precedent or valid justification for dismissing that because their editorial board endorsed Clinton, or because the article in question happens to be about the election. And the quote about Swain is related to her teaching and personal statements, not the peer-reviewed publication cited here. As far as I can tell, that controversy is completely unrelated to her views on Taylor. More to the point, you realise the flap around Swain is about her conservative views right? Shes like the opposite of the SPLC on this stuff, but even she describes Taylor as a supremacist. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ^{~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan} And that's all I have to say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE trumps guidelines. It may be best for you to retract your RfC if you can't explain why we shouldn't follow reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

that's all I have to say -- is that a promise, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps PTF and Nomo would like to provide the diff where I state anything close to saying "you shouldn't follow reliable sources". This is a case where CIR because it appears we have far too many who are misinterpreting what I've said. Please READ my comments. I have consistently quoted POLICY & GUIDELINES. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't a promise.

Your whole argument rests on the premise that "white supremacist" is a value-laden label. It's not. And consensus agrees that it's not. Rockypedia (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As not only SPLC call him a white supremacist we cannot imply they are the only ones who have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz and Atsme have both expressed concerns that this claim is mostly limited to left-leaning outlets since the recent presidential election. This isn't really true, he's been viewed as an extremist by both the right and left for a very long time. For example:

• Bush appointee Linda Chavez: "I’ve never hesitated to call such people racists; they are." (source)
• National Review editor Ian Tuttle "these men ... have not simply been 'accused of racism.' They are racist, by definition. "(source)
• Dinesh D'Souza (a vocal Trump supporter) repeatedly describes Taylor as a racist here (source),

Both the National Review and The Washington Times have also fired editors who attended American Renaissance conferences (source 1, source 2). This is not a mainstream figure. Nblund ^talk 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, "racist" is not synonymous with "white supremacist." Have any of you people ever heard of a dictionary? White supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to other races and should rule over them. It is a form of racism, but there are many forms of racism that aren't white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Last time I looked, this was a BLP about Jared Taylor, not an article about American Renaissance. Again...WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ^{~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan} And that's all I have to say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is not even close to being phrased neutrally and sets up an obvious straw man. It implies that the description of Taylor as a white supremacist is an opinion, rather than a matter of fact. The question of whether opinions should be stated as facts is very very different from the question of whether the article should describe Taylor as the thing he is most notable for; ie his very public white supremacist advocacy. I move that the entire RfC be struck and a more neutral RfC be put in its place. Rockypedia (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In order to keep participants from getting off track, I will emphasize WP:LABEL specifically states (my bold underline): {{xt|Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. Following are the authors/sources which are noncompliant with WP:REDFLAG and WP:LABEL for stating opinon in Wiki voice as a statement of fact:

1. Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, cited as a RS in this BLP for the label "white nationalist".
2. Michael_Newton_(author), not an academic, he writes about conspiracy theories, and is a prolific author who has written lots of books about everything - Jack of all trades?
3. NYTimes article in the Politics section - Election 2016, Donald Trump's Message Resonates With White Supremacists, written by staff writer Jonathan Mahler, which is also cited to the white supremacist label. NYTimes bias in that political article: supported the Dem nominee Hillary Clinton, and clearly shows a bias.
4. Carol M. Swain regarding "opinion not fact" which is clearly reflected in the sources used per the following article wherein it states (my bold): "“I have heard and appreciate the serious concerns of our many students and alumni who have signed an online petition calling for the suspension of Carol Swain, professor of political science and professor of law. Professor Swain’s opinions are her own,” the statement said. “They do not reflect the opinions of the university in any way. They are not my opinions, the opinions of the provost, or the opinions of university leadership.” One would have to draw the conclusion that they're opinions, right? She also wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Biased opinion.
5. SPLC and ADL, questionable and not a RS for statement of fact because they are advocacies: read the last paragraphs in the Britannica, [7] Britannica is a tertiary source, reputable encyclopedia, no bias and they dispute the reliability of those two sources. With research to verify context and sources cited by the sources cited here, you will find that many of them cite SPLC & ADL. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's your true purpose, why not set up an RfC asking if "white supremacist" is a "value-laden label"? No, you didn't do that. You deliberately set up your RfC with an obtuse straw man instead. That makes it clear, to me, at least, that you're not looking for Wikipedia to be neutral - you're looking for this one page to describe Taylor in a more sympathetic light. Doesn't matter, though; most editors have seen through your poorly designed ruse. They're all more polite than I am. I'm willing to call you out for what you are after seeing this RfC - you're a liar. Rockypedia (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rocypedia, calling me a liar is PA - it has been noted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading your veiled threats to editors for days. Now I'm calling you out. "noted"? Go ahead, bring me up on charges. I'd love to see your rationale, in light of your obvious support for whitewashing the page about a white supremacist. Stop with the threats and actually do something. Or just stop with the threats. Either way, you're scaring me exactly zero percent. Rockypedia (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As I already explained, the controversy about Swain has literally nothing to do with her writings about Taylor and is irrelevant here. NYT is a reliable source for facts, period. And being a "lifetime member" of the NAACP does not make someone an unreliable source (why would you think that?). You've said your piece, and restated the same arguments repeatedly. Please let others weigh in (isn't that the point of an RFC?) and stop trying to bludgeon the debate. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:LABEL Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ^{~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you try making a productive comment instead of needless, senseless criticism? Huh? Productivity. It actually works when there's honest collaboration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Because sometimes uses need a reminder that their behavior is becoming disrupting but you want to do it in a minimal way because they tend to overreact due to over investment into the issue at hand (e.g., WP:TROUT). You need to chill; we get your point but clearly a dozen or so experienced users disagree with your interpretation. You're becoming defensive whenever anyone points this out and it's getting to be a bit much. It's great that you wish to uphold our policies regarding BLP protections, but clearly something's amiss here if your alone in the concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've posted that quote and (more or less) that same paragraph three times since starting the rfc this morning. I think we get it, (although obviously not everyone thinks it's the clinching argument that you do). Please stop, the repetition is disruptive. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Pay closer attention to yourself and how you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over - you are bludgeoning so if you expect a different answer ask a different question. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ask you a question? And I've made 4 comments in this RFC so far. You've made (by my count) 14, including 3 which are essentially the same paragraph copy-pasted repeatedly: [8][9][10]. You're not in a position to lecture anyone about bludgeoning the discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, duh - that's because I'm answering/responding to everyone else's questions, like I just did now so if I was responding to every single one, that number would be over 100, not just 14. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Answering? Responding to? No. Nobody is asking any questions and repeating a case every time someone makes a comment isn't really responding.. An effort is being made to try to win an RfC with walls of text, which is ironic really, because it kind of makes it harder to find the actual comments section, which is meant to be found by uninvolved editors. The point at which this strategy began its course was the fraction of an hour it took for a consensus to begin emerging. The threats of PA and subsequent punishments etc. being issued are due to the fact that, while it is very important to focus on content, not the editor, when an editor, through disruptive behavior, becomes the sole focus of an issue, it is hard not to address the person directly. I've attempted this in my post by removing all the pronouns and using the passive voice where possible. Edaham (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you're repeating yourself over and over again in an effort to whitewash an article about a white supremacist, trying to frame him in a more positive light in the face of overwhelming consensus against you. It doesn't matter if the number of times you've done it is 14 or 100. Meanwhile, you've been issuing veiled threats against every editor pointing out the obvious faults in your specious arguments, and "you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over - you are bludgeoning" is just the latest example. I'm watching all of those veiled threats, and to use your own words, "it has been noted." ooo, isn't that ominous sounding? Exactly. Rockypedia (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This article said "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication" up until June 17 of this year when you changed it to "American white nationalist and white supremacist." For 12-13 years, nobody on wikipedia thought to actually label him a white supremacist...and then you came along and connected dots nobody else did. You changed the first sentence from something nobody had a problem with into the controversy it has become. FYI. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI: I am not a "sockpuppet." It's not just that everyone who disagrees with your inane writings is the same person. I think you're projecting. You probably have another username or two and you're agreeing with yourself on here. Hilarious how you would try to insist that IPs would be the "sockpuppets"...like that is any more likely than you registering multiple usernames to make it look like you have "consensus." 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous IP editor. I'll be sure to give this comment exactly the amount of attention that it deserves. Rockypedia (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources showing Taylor is not a white supremacist. Source 1. Source 2. Source 3. Source 4. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary entries will never be evidence that a particular case does or does not call for a term, whether offered by a sockpuppet or a real boy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(e.c.) IP editor: they show nothing of the kind. Synthesis is prohibited. (Would that attempted rebranding of white supremecists were prohibited, too.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

They actually do if you're familiar with Taylor's work. This exposes the flaw in Wikipedia's policy, and allows disingenuous editors to peddle something false based on the natural left slant of electronic media. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So you don't know what synthesis is, and you don't care about Wikipedia's core content policies. You're just here to spout talking points from Fox News. So ends my supposition that a conversation was possible. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If you needed more confirmation, check out this addition by the same IP at the 3RR report I had to file against him: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." Rockypedia (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I just think we should be clear here. He only "is" a white supremacist according to wikipedia's flawed policy - that being someone "is" something ON WIKIPEDIA when numerous mainstream media sources say it (and since the vast majority of media sources are left-wing biased, you're going to get left-wing bias in the claims on wikipedia...especially since the few conservative-slanted sources are dismissed as unreliable around these parts). Anyone who does some actual research will see that this label of Taylor is BS and wikipedia is propagating a false claim based on lazy sources, but that apparently doesn't bother anyone because they're not interested in accuracy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

this is how the world sees him--Moxy (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's how the world sees him, that's an argument for taking out the label, "white supremacist," since that article never refers to him as this. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--I seek to invoke the kind attention of all the participants in stating that I have substantially modified the RFC poser--per Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're debating the wrong thing

"Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist[2] and white supremacist.[3]" SHOULD BE "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and political activist." That's the NPOV description of who he is — you all are chasing your tails trying to describe WHAT he is (and is not). Just drop that line at the top and try it on for size. The current opening line is absolutely unacceptable from an NPOV perspective, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 there's already an RfC open to this

that comment was not worth another thread when there is already an RfC survey open at the top. Add your comments concerning the survey there or feel free to start an unrelated thread.Edaham (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is that it's not worth another thread. My perspective is that you are having an RFC pitting a blatantly POV-drenched option A, against an option B made a half cup of POV, against an option C which just has POV sprinkles. Each and every option presented is a violation of NPOV. You want NPOV? I just gave it to you. Describe what he is in the body of the peace. Summarize that in the second half of the lead. Done. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy the way you use the pronoun "you" when talking about the entirety of this debate. OK yep, I'm going to get right on with editing as you suggest... (in the secret Wikipedia in my head which works exactly the way you want it to)... which is also, coincidentally, where this conversation is happening. Edaham (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I could support Carrite's proposal so long as the sentences that follow in the lead make clear that he is also considered a supremacist and nationalist. I've been trying, with not much success, to argue that it really is more encyclopedic to begin the lead in that way, and then go on to accurately present what his views are. (But I would not support removing entirely the content about supremacy and nationalism.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a proposal which would have satisfied what's being suggested here, which went on to list his achievements. Tryptofish even thanked me for it. It literally ran almost exactly as carrite is suggesting. Apparently though all discussions to date have been POV drenched... sprinkles... something etc. So instead of offering support for that or trying to work with other more closely aligned editors we get told we are all wrong. I'm not opposed to the idea that we describe him as what ever his sourced job title is and then make it abundantly clear what he did in that position in the same paragraph of the lede. What I'm worried about is how the decision to rework the article in this manner might affect interpretation of policy and it's effect on existing articles as well as future efforts to openly and plainly state what can easily be found in reliable sources. At this stage it's probably better to address the closing administrator with this in mind. Edaham (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did like your proposal very much. In Option D2, I attempted to propose essentially the same thing. And I agree that it's unfortunate that the tone of the discussions has been getting in the way of arriving at a thoughtful consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's partly my fault. Like many people, I injuditiously employ attempts at wit (which can be easily misconstrued as insults in text form) as a coping strategy for social interactions I find awkward, especially in those where perceived heirachial structures make me feel personally inadequate. But enough about me. A common analogy has been made - drawing parallels between Jared, Hitler and for some reason Charles Manson. This has been raised a couple of times and some points relevant to the debate can be drawn from it.

• most of what was written about Hitler in order to furnish our article on him was, naturally given his sphere of influence, written in academic text books. In addition to that, it would be wrong to source his article entirely from news outlets (although it may be possible) as we have better sources available. Jared Taylor however, is at best a media personality in a set of trends amid a niche of society whose main interface with Wikipedia is via the press. We've used what academic sources we can find in the article, but the large portion of it (him being living) naturally comes from the media. If you want a Wikipedia article to accurately reflect the difference between Hitler and Taylor, as well as reflect the sources which are reasonably procurable do you think we should impose identical guidelines or should we look at this on a per case basis? Hitler is well known. Jared is not. To omit from the opening sentence on his article, the fact that Hitler was a racist facist is quite proper, since he was better known for other things, which naturally precede this information, which is pretty well known also. Jared isn't really known for anything other than being an activist and the only thing that distinguishes him among a sea of other activists is that he (according to sources) supports white supremacy in the country where he lives. Wikipedia ought to be able to distinguish when it is appropriate to reflect information which may be in a state of change, and when to rely on established texts. We pretty much have this system in place already and I think that this Hitler argument is a challenge to that system. Edaham (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea, but disagree with both those assessments. He's not notable as a writer, he's notable as an editor/publisher/founder of American Renaissance. And "political activist" is willfully vague, there must be some way of describing his political views which you don't feel is a violation of NPOV. I don't know whether you feel that's "far-right" or "alt-right" or "white nationalist" or something else; "race realist" is a made-up term that will never get consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with "segregationist" - |Joseph Victor; Joanne Naughton (2003). Annual Editions: Criminal Justice 03/04. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-07-283827-5. According to racial separatist Jared Taylor of American Renaissance...--Moxy (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am concerned that, right now, in the wake of the riots that took place in Charlottesville, there is no way we can be neutral. Emotions have been running high on both sides of the political spectrum, and the extremes are dominating the conversation (to either attack or defend Taylor). Perhaps this should be revisited in a year... when emotions have calmed, and we can examine the question with some historical perspective. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. It might be best to settle for "good enough" for now, and do some fine-tuning later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Point of Order

Normally I'd laugh this off as petty silliness, but given the disruptive behavior that is already in evidence on this RFC and the fact that it was not neutrally worded in the first place, I feel obliged to point this out: More than five hours after their initial !vote was added here, and long after had added my own !vote here, Atsme added a second comment under their initial !vote here. Because it directly referenced the list of sources that I had raised in my own !vote, I thought it obvious that that this was a reply to my own, and thus moved it to the Threaded Discussion section, assuming that this would be uncontroversial (in my experience, most RFCs work best when everyone gets one !vote, and then replies to others' comments and !votes in the section below).

Once moved, Atsme's second post garnered multiple replies, both from Atsme and from others (including myself) [11][12][13][14][15][16]. (That's just a few diffs as examples, there are more).

Since then, however, Atsme has moved their second !vote back up to the top of the survey section while leaving the replies below and altering the date stamp on their second post to make it look like it was written before my own !vote (which it was clearly a reply to, but now appears above in the survey section). See the essentially identical diffs with altered datestamps: initial post, restoration.

I'd like to request that Atsme move their later comment back to the Survey section, so that it is with the posts that were written in reply to it, and so that people's !votes appear in the order in which they were made. Being the proposer of the RFC is not a license to give your own replies and reactions to other people's contributions top billing. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, looks like this was reverted while I was typing this up. Assuming it stays that way I will strike this - but Atsme, please don't alter datestamps like that. It's not a good look.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't alter any datestamps - I wouldn't know how. You probably did it when you reverted me and if not you, then Rockypedia when he reverted me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ohhh I see what happened. It was you, but probably not on purpose:

Original post stamped 17:13

My move, still stamped 17:13.

Your restoration the stamp is altered to read "12:13 Today."

did you copy paste from rendered text, rather than from source maybe? It just changed from UTC to UTC - 5 (is that your timezone?)

Serious apologies for assuming bad faith, sorry Atsme. I was bothered by the non-sequential order of the comments and jumped to a conclusion I should not have, my apologies. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have kept the accusations, but also included a quote about white supremacy in an interview with Jared Taylor. I hope this helps? UshilRasnal (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for changes to the current consensus. Please read the Survey section above, which currently has a clear consensus. Softlavender (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog

I have suggested that splcenter.org/hatewatch, which is used for this article among others, sould not be used. See WP:BLPN "Southern Poverty Center Blog". Please comment there not here. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Thanks for letting us know. At this point it might be helpful to list all the similar discussions so we can slow down all the repetition. I certainly don't recall them all. There was an attempt, I don't recall where, at changing policy to prevent sources from being used if the subject of the article disagreed with the conclusions of those sources. There were discussions about individual sources, at least one at RSN. Seems like I may be forgetting about a few others. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said on the WP:BLPN notice: "This was a side issue on a WP:RSN thread Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist which was archived without consensus". As far as I know that is the only time it has come up. However, several editors said during the WP:BLPN discussion that it has been discussed multiple times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Labeling_people_correctly --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jared_Taylor#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center and the associated RSN discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_As_Source_For_Labeling_Someone_a_White_Supremacist --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The NPOVN and Talk:Jared_Taylor discussions aren't about the blog; the RSN discussion is what I pointed to, and as I said: it was a side issue there, and as far as I know that is the only time it has come up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I expect these are the discussions that others are repeatedly referring to. Ignore if you like, but it doesn't help your case and might be interpreted as WP:IDHT if pressed too far. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

None of them has said what they're talking about so there's nothing to ignore. I've clearly and repeatedly said what I'm talking about, Southern Poverty Law Center Blog -- e.g. see the thread title and my first post post on WP:BLPN which says "blog" eight times. If they're thinking about discussions that are not about the blog, then I regret that I didn't repeat many more times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion was not accepted and the discussion is now archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Article content discussion

Comparing the current version to [17].

I find Carrite's argument in the earlier RFC convincing. "White nationalist" and "white supremacist" are both adjectives, "writer" and "activist"/"advocate" are nouns. We should describe this BLP in the lede sentence with at least one noun, not simply a collection of adjectives. Beyond that, the "Reception" section consists of press clippings, and in general I don't think "endorsed Donald Trump" is the type of topic that needs to have a section on any BLP's article. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That editor's opinion was in the minority, and as such was not adopted. Start a new RfC if you really feel strongly about the issue, but a suggestion that we just straight-out adopt a losing proposition is d.o.a. TheValeyard (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If the concern here is grammar, I don't think that's an issue. Supremacist is an adjectival noun, like the word "young" in the quote "Youth is wasted on the young". If it's good enough for George Bernard Shaw, it's good enough for Wikipedia.

Taylor didn't just endorse Donald Trump, he made unsolicited robocalls for the campaign. It got quite a bit of national coverage, and eventually prompted a response from Trump himself. I have a hard time seeing why it wouldn't be included. Nblund ^talk 04:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• We just had an RFC that focused, primarily, on that specific part of the lead, and the outcome was fairly lopsided in favor of the current wording. Regarding his support of Trump, it deserves a section because it's one of the things about the article's subject that has attracted the most coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at this wrong? Not White Supremacist, but Asian Supremacist?

no clear change to article text based on sources was proposed. wp:not forum Edaham (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We see from the article: Taylor argues that Blacks are generally less intelligent than Hispanics, while Hispanics are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter" If he believes that Asians are superior to Whites, and by extension superior to every other "race", then would that not make him an Asian Supremacist instead of a White Supremacist? Xparasite9 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC) nope - and wp:notforum Edaham (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I don't think you're using that link/argument correctly. Do you perhaps mean wp:SYNTH? Xparasite9 (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC) the proposal is to replace a term and call Jared Taylor an Asian supremacist? That's a forum topic. I don't mean anything other that what I said. Stop using the talk pages for articles in order to have tongue in cheek chit chats. Edaham (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC) See - A lot of white supremacists seem to have a weird Asian fetish. TheValeyard (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure if that counts, being that he's married someone not asian, and that he grew up in Japan, so that might stem from fondness of his upbringing rather than a fetishization of some mystical perception of Asians. Xparasite9 (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC) His status as a white supremacist is determined by sources, and that's where this ends. Even the Nazis had "Honorary Aryans", but that was for convenience and propaganda. Sources do not accept that as valid, and they do not accept that Taylor isn't a white supremacist, either. "Asian supremacist" would only make sense as a false parallel to a simplistic definition of white supremacism. If he advocated for policies and positions that functionally undermined the rights of white people in favor of Asian people, you might have a point. He doesn't though. Instead, he advocates for policies and positions which treat non-white people as inferior, and has demonstrated contempt for positions which do not benefit a pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historical idea of whiteness. Regardless of his often-repeated ranking, his position is functionally to advocate for white supremacy with the full understanding of this end result. His facade of Asian intellectual superiority is, correctly, regarded as an empty distraction by reliable sources for multiple reasons. Again, this is about reliable sources. Regardless of why they call him this, they do, and that's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC) hat? Edaham (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Those sources are stating opinion, not fact. And if you are talking about "simplistic definition" of white supremacy, this means that you are acknowledging that the very definition of "white supremacy" is subjective, ergo, you can not call someone such as fact using wiki voice. "Has been described as" is the correct way to put it on a BLP, as others have noted. And that's what it was for ages, if you look at the history, before Rockypedia came by a few months ago and changed it, resulting in this controversy. 162.238.116.106 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC) That's comically wrong. Neither "simplistic" nor "definition" has anything to do with being subjective, nor does being arguably subjective mean something cannot be treated as factual if it's done by reliable source, and regardless, calling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Rockypedia changed it to remove weasel-word editorializing. You're offering nothing new, here, and HATting this would be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC) No, that's exactly what it means. You are claiming the term can be defined in different ways - simplistically and not simplistically ("simplistic" doesn't mean, "false"), in which case, it can not be factually said that somebody is a "white supremacist," since you think the term is subjectively defined. You're hilariously trying to get around the fact that the dictionary disagrees with you. Also, sources treat things as "factual" all the time that are actually opinion, and it is the job of wikipedia editors to differentiate between fact and opinion instead of falling back on, "well, the source says so, therefore we can use wiki voice to state it as fact." There's a reason there has been such an uproar over your edits, which you have managed to maintain through your numerous alternate accounts voting in favor of what you want. And no, Rockypedia (you) edited it to serve your agenda, just as you use numerous sock puppet accounts, and then hilariously accuses others of doing what you are doing. 162.238.116.106 (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Any allegations of this sort belong at WP:ANI, not in article talk. We're entering dead horse territory now, and continuance of this thread is unlikely to result in improvement to the article. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)  regarding hat:done Edaham (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right

Jared Taylor seems to frequently be described by media outlets as a figure associated with the alt-right, and has gained extensive coverage in part as a result of this association. What do others think of mentioning the association in the article?

• http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/26/the-intellectual-godfather-of-the-alt-right-talks-to-the-daily-caller/
• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/alt-right-conservative-movement-embraces-trump-campaign.html
• http://www.newsweek.com/2017/04/28/alt-right-poster-art-propaganda-white-nationalism-586355.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/15/breitbart-news-alt-right-stephen-bannon-trump-administration
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/white-nationalists-and-nazi-saluting-tila-tequila-toast-emperor-trump-in-washington-dc
• http://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/the-alt-right-celebrates-breitbart-chief-steve-bannons-role-to-donald-trumps-strategist/
• http://www.npr.org/2016/11/20/502719871/energized-by-trumps-win-white-nationalists-gather-to-change-the-world
• http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/alt-right-trump-washington-dc-power-milo-214629
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-right-exuberant-after-trump-victory-100038175.html
• https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/what-is-the-alt-right
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-alt-movement-emerging-force-2016-race/story?id=41647165
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/ben-shapiros-messy-breakup-with-breitbart.html
• https://www.ft.com/content/e148d930-6cdb-11e6-9ac1-1055824ca907

--Jay942942 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a really nebulous post; you're going to need to be more specific. Try saying: "What do you guys think of adding this text? Taylor is also a leader in the alt-right movement, or whatever text you're looking to add. I would also avoid the handful of unreliable sources that are included in your list. Rockypedia (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Something like "Taylor has often been described in media reports as associated with the alt right" to be as neutral as possible.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest adding that to the "Views" section, in a new paragraph, right before the "Race" sub-section. Along with 1 or 2 good sources. Rockypedia (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This Is Op-Ed

This source listed for Taylor being a white supremacist is an op-ed piece (not a reliable secondary source): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/17/heres-what-white-supremacy-looks-and-sounds-like-now-its-not-your-grandfathers-kkk/ NFLExpert49 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Have a read through at the WPost's About the Monkey Cage (that's the name of the section that this articles comes from). They do not publish traditional advocacy Op-Eds, but rather think pieces by political scientists and researchers. All submissions are subject to a review board, as noted on that page. It passes all standards for reliable sourcing, so I'm afraid your argument is shot down. TheValeyard (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

An opinion by a political scientist is still an opinion. There's a difference between an expert stating something as fact and stating something as opinion; they're clearly just stating opinions. NFLExpert49 (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect to Taylor that are simply providing the widely used description of him, as noted in the other sources cited. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable sources and the things they say don't have to be facts in this case. They have to be the things that they say. Their opinions are representative of a consensus which we find to be reliable. The things which are stated by reliable sources don't have to meet your definition of a fact, they have to meet Wikipeida's definition of a mainstream verifiable piece of information. Edaham (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing and definition of white supremacy

I believe the sources claiming Jared Taylor to be a white supremacist are false. I read through what I could access. For example, the washington post one simply states Jared Taylor as a white supremacist without references or any explanation. The article does not source this claim so there is no way to find the logic behind the use of the term. This is circular logic, "Jared Taylor is white supremacist because he's a white supremacist" and so on.

The New York Times article has the same issue. The article claims Jared Taylors opposition to multiculturalism, however this is not claimed to apply to non white nations.

The definition of white supremacy according to dictionary.com is: the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society. : The belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.

The word "dominate" implies forceful domination, and Jared Taylor supports voluntarism as stated in this very article. This is a contradiction, as you can't advocate for domination and voluntarism at the same time.

Jared Taylor claiming that other races have superior qualities with other races is also highly contradictory to the claim that he is a white supremacist, as the definition of white supremacy means superiority to all asians. Countering this with claiming that Hitler called Japanese honorary aryans is irrelevant, as Jared Taylor is not calling Japanese "honorary aryans" simply stating that the Japanese have a higher iq score than whites. No, he is not a reliable source on definitions, but it is not his definitions that matter but his arguments, which are contrary to white supremacy. "He is, however, advocating that whites work to take political power and social influence from all other races (in ways that would necessarily require violence)" This still does not fill the definition of white supremacy, as he still states that other groups should be able to live in their own countries without discrimination by whites, which does not fit the definition of white supremacy.

The claim that Jared Taylor believes that whites should be the dominant group in any society has no sources. You do realize that you will get fired from these companies if you defend white nationalism? There are no reliable sources for this OR against this, as this is a controversial issue, so stating the issue as controversial instead of a fact would be the honest thing to do. - ThuleFinn (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your entire essay here appears to be based on original research. Please read that link to see why this isn't something that can be used in support of changes to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair Rockypedia! It's not all original research.... some of it's primary sourced too. Edaham (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just re-branded READ ME....CLICK HERE.--Moxy (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jared Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://store.amren.com/catalog/books/the-real-american-dilemma/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519184008/http://store.amren.com/catalog/books/essential-writings-on-race/ to http://store.amren.com/catalog/books/essential-writings-on-race/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

The edit to be made should be the removal of "white supremacist". In a video interview with CNN, Jared Taylor disavows white supremacy and says he is NOT a white supremacist whatsoever. Taylor continues to say a white supremacist is an individual that wants white people to control everything and have power over everyone. This falls in line with the definition of supremacy. Furthermore, Taylor adds he, as a white man with an European heritage, just wants to be left alone. He is similar to a Japanese citizen wanting Japan to remain majority Japanese culture and heritage. We do not call this person a Japanese Supremacist. Honestly, the inclusion of "white supremacist" in the description of Jared Taylor is slander and libelous. This should be immediately removed. A link to the interview in pasted below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol6GA4dMZw4 Sebastianany12 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively. See this RfC for more detail. Rockypedia (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pls gain WP:consensus first.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• This has been discussed many, many times before. Why the sudden surge of comments about this? Is it just the twitter thing, or did some youtuber or gabber post something about it? Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

The wikipedia page of "White Supremacy" states: "White supremacy or white supremacism is 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"

Jared Taylor refuses that label in the CNN interview of May 5 with Sara Sidner of CNN, stating he has 'no desire' over such power. This is consistent with other TV appearances in which he did advocate racial segregation, but firmly rejected the idea of white dominance over other races. None of the given sources give any quote of Jared Taylor advocating white dominance.

I thereby request that notions of white supremacy on this page to be removed or placed under a 'criticisms' or 'accusations' header. 2001:980:1DFE:1:D084:381A:AB4A:5794 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 not done We have discussed this at length. His white supremacist views and their documentation in reliable sources are well founded and available through the citations in the article. Edaham (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional external link

There is an archived version of Mr. Taylor's personal website at https://archive.jaredtaylor.org

I can't figure out if this is the correct place to do/recommend this, but it seems a candidate for inclusion in the links section.

Gregraven (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

There is one thing that needs to be changed with this page. Jared Taylor is a White Nationalist, but not a White Supremacist. To not falsely connect these two words, I suggest that the sentences metioning his association to White supremacy be deleted.

Thank you. :) Tyffen123 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

READ ME....CLICK HERE to see term usage.--Moxy (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 not done You can read the references in the article itself, and read the archives of this talk page to find the lengthy discussion about exactly this topic, to learn about why Taylor is described as exactly what he is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussed extensively already. There is consensus to keep the current wording. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Taylor is not a "white supremacist"

None of the sources cited say how or why Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, they merely assert it. Until some actual evidence can be provided to support this label, I think it's honestly best to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs)

What you "think" isn't at all important; what reliable sources describe the subject as, is. You made similar suggestions, and tried to edit-war your preferred version, into the article several months ago. What are you bringing to the talk page here today that is different from what you suggested in June? TheValeyard (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• How odd this post appears today.....new source just published. ..should we use it? CQ Researcher (2017). Issues in Race and Ethnicity. SAGE Publications. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-1-5443-1635-2..--Moxy (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Saying "is an American white nationalist and white supremacist" transform an judgmental opinion into an indisputable fact. However, this opinion is disputed by several people (see the many posts here), so it certainly can't be considered as an indisputable. Something like "is often been described as an American white nationalist and white supremacist" is, on the other hand, an indisputable fact. There is no reason to revert this change. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Later in this very article: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Incidentally, I recently saw an interview with this man where he found the idea of white supremacy laughable for this very reason. Providing biased sources that make assertions does not make something a fact. The bias and logical inconsistency in this article is a disgrace. Staying anonymous lest one of the "sources" here describe me as a white supremacist. 209.122.241.80 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls read over Scientific racism.--Moxy (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that the opinions of several people determine how we present well-verified information. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede

If Taylor denies that he is a white supremacist and a racist, then you can't say so in the lede in Wikipedia's voice. You have to say that others have described him as such. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. This isn't a platform for his euphemistic public relations. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter ban and subsequent court case

Hi all, I recently included details of Taylor's decision to begin legal proceedings against Twitter - details of the edit I made can be found here, (in the final paragraph of the reception section). Ronz suggested that this information did not merit inclusion. I just wondered what other people thought? For my part, this seems like a very reasonable addition to the page, not least because it builds upon existing material in the wiki page regarding Twitter's decision to ban Taylor. The information can be attributed to a reliable source of information. Jono1011 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe with better sources. The reference is little more than an announcement that he's suing, giving basically nothing but the perspective of Taylor and his lawyer.

Consider some hypothetical situations: If the case gets thrown out, would we keep the material? Of if it's settled without terms being disclosed? What about it could be encyclopedic if there's no legal analysis? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: sources, I think the following sites could be included: 1, 2, copies of the papers that were files 3

In terms of encyclopaedic value, I think there are three points that can be made:

1. It helps to update a page which already refers to the fact that Taylor's account has been suspended by Twitter
2. I think it is noteworthy that Taylor is being represented by Marc Randazza, who also represents Andrew Anglin, publisher of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website.
3. It is noteworthy that Taylor's argument, that Twitter violated Californian law protecting free speech in public spaces, has not previously been applied to the internet.

In the event that the case gets thrown out, we can update the page accordingly, presumably taking care to include details of why it was thrown out, but the points above still standJono1011 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your second and third points don't appear to be supported by references. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The second point is supported by this reference, the third point is supported by this reference. Jono1011 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think since we mention the suspension we should mention the lawsuit. We should never use Scribd as a source, ripe with copyvio and we wouldn't use court files as sources. You've got enough reliable sources for it. As an aside, the word 'noteworthy' isn't used the way we use it here. I'd mention the fact of the lawsuit and the lawyer. And Twitter's response. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, very happy not to include the Scribd sources Jono1011 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are people happy if I update the article to reflect the changes discussed above - i.e the law suit, the lawyer and Twitter's response?Jono1011 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep it extremely brief, summarizing the main points. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your contributions. Jono1011 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed it substantially and provided the missing context of why the accounts were suspended. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

In the intro description, Jared Taylor is described as a "White Supremacist", this needs to be changed to "White Advocate" or "White Nationalist"; Jared has repeatedly denounced the term "white supremacist", and deems it misrepresenting of his views and policies. Tikkunolam123 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done -- same question, same answer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

For the wiki page on Jared Taylor, I request that the description (at the top of the page) of Jared Taylor, namely 'white supremacist' be changed to 'white nationalist'. The sources used to support this claim are biased in-and-of themselves. I believe the rhetoric Jared Taylor espouses is not supportive of the 'white supremacist' label. As he has never said that he believes white people are superior to other races, nor has he ever used any kind of pseudoscience to perpetuate any white superiority over other races. 96.49.170.116 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Request moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests to Talk:Jared Taylor — IVORK _Discuss 05:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See above at Talk:Jared Taylor#White nationalist removed from lede, the question has already been adressed. — IVORK _Discuss 05:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)