Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

White genocide

"Taylor supports the white genocide conspiracy theory," No he doesn't, watch this video and go to 3:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvWCqRabw4U Nate Hooper (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A YouTube video from a white supremacist organization is not a reliable source. That you are watching white supremacist videos on YouTube suggests that you may not have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not the least bit concerned about the "reliability" of the video. It's likely an accurate record of what he wanted it to say. It is certainly a biased self-published source, not in any way useful for anything other than uncontested basic facts about the author of the source. There are no such facts being discussed here.

As an aside:In the video, he does say, specifically referring to this article, that he does not believe it is a "plot". Then again, he goes on to say he is certain it is happening, projecting the white percentage in the U.S. dwindling down as far as 0%. More to the point, he says he is not a racist. So, based on what he says about himself, he believes the "white genocide" is real though he believes it isn't, and he isn't a racist. Based on similar primary sourced material, no one is a racist and several supposedly violent white supremacist groups are really racially heterogeneous groups of guys who get together to have a few beers and do community service projects. I'm sure if the Smallpox virus could talk and had a Twitter account we'd find out it isn't a disease at all and never killed anyone.

Instead of having subjects write their own articles telling us how great they are, Wikipedia says what independent reliable sources say about them: yes, Smallpox killed a hell of a lot of people, various groups are violent gangs and/or community service organizations and Jared Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist organization who believes that a collection of policies and efforts in the United States are eliminating whites, something that independent reliable sources call the "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory". Whether or not the subjects believe the assessments are fair or how it makes them look is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The source provided that he supports white genocide theory is not a valid source either. It's not a reputable media outlet, nor does it even address a single thing Taylor has ever said on the issue. It is a blog article on the issue and it just passively throws in Taylors name as a proponent of it. The author of it, Rosa Lyster, is not a journalist and has no reason to adhere to journalistic standards of evidence. As per Taylors personal comments on the matter, he defines genocide as "a deliberate attempt to exterminate a people" and says "I don't think anyone is deliberately exterminating white people." His definition of genecide also correlates well with wikis own page on genocide. He also says "I do not speak ever of white genocide" and "I have spoken against this idea". It's obvious that taking his quotes and his 'word' for it, is not actual evidence that he has never supported white genocide, but the lack of evidence for the positive still does not provide evidence for the positive. There is still no reputable source that he has ever supported, in the past, white genocide theory, and the YouTube source is still a reputable source to make the statement that he denies the accusation. BryanKelly1111 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC) — BryanKelly1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is not based on whether or not you consider an author a "journalist" or whether or not you think they "adhere to journalistic standards of evidence". For our purposes, the question is whether or not the source -- the publication, not the author -- meets the criteria outlined at WP:IRS.

It is not a blog and clearly has editorial review. If, after reviewing WP:IRS you still feel it does not meet the criteria, please explain here.

Yes, Taylor says things about himself. Taylor is not an independent source for information about himself, nor is he a reliable source for anything. In the past we have discussed "white supremacist" for various subjects as most disown the term, preferring "white separatist", "racial realist" or some other term they feel is more palatable to the public. We don't care what they want to call themselves, we call them what independent reliable sources call them. In the present case, the sources say the subject is a white supremacist who promotes racist ideologies, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.

Related: You will find that most supporters of the white genocide conspiracy theory tend to leave out the "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" part or otherwise disavow any indication that they are promoting the "white genocide conspiracy theory". That Taylor simply says he doesn't believe it, then outlines his claims that it's true is not in the least surprising or convincing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Taylor says things about himself, he also makes claims and doesn't make claims, the later two points being the topic. And considering this an article about a living person, and wiki holds special importance to getting the facts neutral and well supported, i'd say an article that states Taylor's name in passing, with no analysis of a single thing he said, doesn't qualify to wikis journalistic standards of evidence. Pretty sad the neutrality of Wiki has gone so off base that people can be accused of something that they never said, even go as far as renouncing of said thing,(not changing definitions) and such things are held irrelavent. Shifting to terms of "white separatist" vs "racial realist" is a false comparison and off topic. The focus is the word Genocide that has a specific meaning and of which there is no controversy of it. Genocide by definition requires intent, and this is not a controversial or disputed issue. There is no discussion about "conspiracy" going on here.BryanKelly1111 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the analysis above.....but have to say we really should have better sources for this.--Moxy 🍁 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"you may not have the competence required to edit Wikipedia."" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC) - Whereis "competence" mentioned in "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Who defines "competency"? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Competency is required" exists for two reasons:

- Those who truly cannot understand that they must provide independent reliable sources, edit collaboratively, etc.

- Those who claim to not understand that they must provide independent reliable sources, edit collaboratively, etc.

Anyone can edit, some may not edit. Editors are blocked from editing for various lengths of time for various reasons quite regularly. "Anyone can edit" is not a rallying cry for chaos. Wikipedia is a voluntary community. We have policies that we have crafted and we enforce them. We report what independent reliable sources say. Our definition of reliable sources that you (and others "in (your) circles" reject. With that in mind, I've suggested you consider Conservapedia and Metapedia to others "in your circles" before as you are unlikely to collaborate with the community here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but am a little confused by the advice. I don't know what others "in my circles" means, I didn't know that I had a circle. Circles are communist. I don't consider myself a conservative, so Conservapedia doesn't sound like an alternative project to which to contribute. I have heard about Metapedia in passing but know next to nothing about it. Who does? 47.137.185.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You have a circle. It's not subtle.[1]

If you remain interested in using Occidental Observer as a source while challenging ADL, Metapedia might be exactly what you are looking for. They'd be right on board with that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Can You Explain the Inconsistency in Labeling Taylor a White Supremacist

Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. I feel that labeling the White advocate Jared Taylor a “White Supremacist” is highly inconsistent. How may I point this out? Well, Wikipedia has no article for Jewish Supremacist. Even if a prominent figure were to support the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine, they would never be labeled a Jewish Supremacist. Therefore, methinks there is a tad bit of bias and unfairness going on. If someone can explain to me this blatant inconsistency and unfairness, I will gladly never again question the decision of Wikipedia editors and admins to label the man the term that could be described as the N-word for White people. Thank you so very kindly. 184.53.33.68 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You cannot point out the inconsistency, for the simple fact that while it denies this fact, Wikipedia is censored. It currently won't let you even name a certain "whistleblower". 47.137.185.72 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Our articles discuss what reliable sources have written about a subject. There is a huge body of literature on "white supremacism". We don't have an article on Arab supremacism either. If you can find multiple reliable sources an article would likely be appropriate. The same answer goes for the alleged identity of the whistleblower. When it's published in multiple reliable sources we'll print it. We aren't breaking news, we are not meant to be the main source for this sort of thing and if we did print it we would be the main source. And of course there have been threats to kill the whistleblower. It's not censorship to follow our policies. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly biased. We do not report everything that "sources" report. We report what independent reliable sources say. There are other sources reporting lots of things: the Earth is flat, HIV does not cause AIDS, the world is controlled by alien/human hybrids, and a bunch of other nonsense.

Jared Taylor, his foundation, his magazine, etc. are a source. They are not a reliable source. The guy in the desert launching himself in homemade rockets is a source. He is not a reliable source. My cousin who is certain vaccines are a communist plot is a source. He is not a reliable source. Wikipedia rejects all of them, by policy.

You can edit in accordance with that policy and others. You can work to try to change those policies. If, however, you edit in violation of Wikipedia's policies (and common sense) you will be excluded from the community by the community. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

How come SPLC is a "reliable" source, but Occidental Observer, for instance, is not? Who decides what is reliable? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We follow what the academic community say about sources.--Moxy 🍁 05:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The community of Wikipedia editors decides, based on the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. A number of sources have been discussed so often that we have a list of the outcomes at WP:RS/P. SPLC "is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States."

The Occidental Observer, a white nationalist and antisemitic source, published by the white nationalist Charles Martel Society is not discussed at RS/P. If you really think it meets the criteria outlined at IRS, feel free to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Heck, you can even ask about SPLC again, or Stormfront, the New York Times or any other sources you feel we whould or shouldn't use. (Or, you know, trust my experience in telling you it simply does not have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".)

Again, you may find your strong opinions to be more in line with Conservapedia or (more likely) Metapedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

And some potentially relevant reading before one goes off to WP:RSN: WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

”Taylor also asserts that there are racial differences in intelligence among the various ethno-racial groups across the world.” This is another part of the article I take umbrage with. Taylor does not make that assertion. IQ statistics make that assertion. And a majority of experts in the field of intelligence believe that this gap is more genetic than environmental.

Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts)

0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts

50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts

60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts

100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts)

M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-iq-researchers-really-think-about-race-and-intelligence/

Wikipedia should stop pushing the pseudoscientific belief that race realism is false by ignoring or dismissing all the evidence that it is real. :::184.53.32.60 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

An independent reliable source shows that Taylor makes that assertion. That you and a fringe source make the same assertion does not convert the assertion to a fact. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, the site you cited contains Holocaust denial. If that was a mistake and you now realize that maybe you're citing bad sources, great. If one does not see such a source as a problem, they can fuck off to the part of hell reserved for Nazis. In either case, do not respond further. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

first sentence

"editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine espousing such opinions" ... "espousing such opinions" ??? It's a white supremacist magazine. The Wikipedia article about it says that it's a white supremacist magazine. Suggest that the first sentence be changed to accurately reflect this. The current form seems like it's trying to tiptoe around the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.101.242 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nieli (2019)

I have reintroduced and trimmed down the additions, except for the parts that directly quote Taylor since it was criticized by the edsum. That said, when scholars study the thought of an author (even a White Supremacist), they are generally quoting the texts and viewpoint of their subject. I'm not even quoting the interview myself (I have never read it), I'm quoting Nieli who is referring to the interview he made for his research. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I'm only summarizing the chapter written by Nieli in the OUP-published Key Thinkers of the Radical Right. Please point to specific parts that you find undue. This is a short but comprehensive chapter I'm trying to trim down as best as I can, so it rather looks like WP:I don't like it than WP:Undue. Alcaios (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP:SOAP, perhaps you're referring to "Japan expert" and "widely-acclaimed". Well, those are not my words but those of Nieli. As for Renaud Camus who was viewed as an influential "gay writer" in the 1980s and a widely-acclaimed author before he developed his conspiracy theory in the early 2000s, it's important to mention that these people and their works were well-received in mainstream society before they turned into white supremacists. Alcaios (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of edsums on my side, this is my way of contributing. I make a lot of small edits which, I admit, sometimes make following my additions difficult. I'll try to work more often in a draft before publishing. Alcaios (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and efforts to use edit-summaries. Let's see what others think. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in an edit war. I have trimmed down and adapted the new content to address your criticism in the edsum. Alcaios (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"White supremacist"

In the beginning it says "Samuel Jared Taylor is an American white supremacist" but then later on in the article it says he thinks asians are objectively more superior than whites" so in the beginning it would be more like, Samuel Jared Taylor is an American Asian Supremacist. Jaxso71 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist, so Wikipedia says he is a white supremacist. If the sources said he is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich, even if you find something saying there's some ham in there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying (as Taylor's views are pretty unusual for any white supremacist) but like SummerPhD says: we go with what reliable sources say. To use his/her analogy, we discuss how much ham is in the cheese later in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider "Independent reliable sources", but if you mean some people on the main stream media or some interest groups, then it is very debatable that they are "reliable". Most of them are not neutral and an encyclopedia should not take their words but vice versa. Let me quote Wikipedia's first sentence describing 'White supremacy': "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them." Jared Taylor makes it very clear every time this comes up, that he DOES NOT BELIEVE that "white people are superior to people of other races", and he OPPOSES COMPLETELY to "therefore [whites] should be dominant over them [other races]". This is not debatable. He has many hours of interviews, YouTube videos and many articles written. He simply does not fit the definition of a white supremacist. He DOES FIT the definition of a white nationalist.

A better description of him can be "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white NATIONALIST.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israeliconservative (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Israeliconservative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hey, good luck in selling the idea that the mainstream media isn't essentially neutral, thatt'll go over big on Wikiepdia. Further, that you think that "white nationalist" is in some way less appalling than "white supremacist" is cute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

("Isreali onservative" my ass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC))

"Independent reliable sources" are explained at WP:SOURCE. Short answer: "Independent" not connected to the subject. "Reliable sources" are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So, for example, a peer reviewed journal with a high impact score is reliable for most material. So is the New York Times. If either one reports election returns, you can pretty much assume those returns are a simple fact.

Toward the other end of the spectrum are blogs, political screeds, conspiracy theory sites, tabloids, etc. A few clear examples are outlined at WP:RS/P.

Pointing to a definition of "white supremacist" (or any other term) from any source and trying to determine if it applies to a subject is original research, inevitably leading to arguments about whether or not the Moon landings happened, HIV causes AIDS, Bigfoot exists, etc. Wikipedia doesn't do that. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources say. If such sources said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. Arguing he has neither cheese nor bread is pointless. We'd be moving on to deciding whether to link to Cheese sandwich or to Cheese and Sandwich.

Independent reliable sources say Taylor is a white supremacist who edits a white supremacist magazine, published by a white supremecist organization he runs, which he says is "white separatist". - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• All these brand new accounts, saying the same thing over and over, but never saying anything new, and never giving any decent response to the last time it was debunked...

Since Tayor speaks Japanese, the Japanese article refers to him as "白人至上主義". Should we call him that, instead? No, wait, that's another term for white supremacy, oh well. It's obvious that even in an encyclopedia, these words aren't as nuanced as their advocates would like to pretend. The point of Wikipedia is not to make room for confusion, it's to summarize, and "white supremacist" does a good job of summarizing reliable source.

"White nationalism", on the other hand, was popularized by full-on white supremacists as a way to make their white supremacist ideas seem less white supremacist. It's not some complicated political ideology which is vastly different, and it never has been that.

What's interesting to me is the repeated focus on a simplistic definition of white supremacy. This is likely based on a selective reading of Wikipedia's article on white supremacy. But of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

The exact same selective interpretation is often used at Lana Lokteff, who has shared screens with Taylor at least once or twice, as well as other articles. Whenever "white supremacist" is used, there's a push to tone-it-down to "white nationalist", just as we see here. But whenever that is used, such as at Stefan Molyneux (another of Taylor's chums), there's a push to tone-it-down to something even more euphemistic. Taylor himself has written about this at least a few times. He's given the game away, since he's told us that he's fully aware this is a word game. His preference is about public relations, not accuracy, and nobody should care too much about that nonsense Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a shell game, the euphemism treadmill being harnessed for illicit purposes. We need to keep this under control, and not let them pervert facts and accuracy so they can hide in the interstices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Jared Taylor is a "white supremacist" can just be easily refuted by any random quotation of his opinions. Wikipedia is no place for immature hippie kids, who promote loony Neomarxist ideologies with which they were brainwashed in school. Kick them out of here! If you want the word "supremacist" in the text, then formulate it according to objective facts: 'Jared Taylor is called "a white supremacist' by some organizations such as SPLC'. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK simple question, can you provide one quote where he says he is not a white supremacist?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A very complicated response: Have you ever watched any video with Taylor or have you ever read any of his articles? One of the contributors above just quoted his words that refute all the garbage on this page. Your words testify that you have no clue who this man is. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me put it like this, "the moon is made of green cheese, cheese comes from cows, cows eat grass". Just because I said two thins that are correct does not mean that I never said the moon is made of green cheese. So where does he deny it, not merely not say something racist, deny it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're off on a side track. Wikipedia does not care what the subject says it is. I'm sure McDonalds says it is the best restaurant chain in the world. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If the sources regularly and repeatedly said that Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. That he does not say anything about being a cheese sandwich -- or even if he flatly denied it -- would be immaterial. Plenty of white supremacists/white nationalists/etc. like to use terms they feel are more palatable. If the person claims to be a "white separatist" or a "racialist" or (my favorite) a "racial realist", but the independent reliable sources say "white supremacist", Wikipedia says they are a white supremacist. Other popular arguments that we reject are that the person says things that aren't compatible with the label, the laundry list of sources is biased or it's not NPOV. The first argument is original research, the second fails at WP:RS/P, the third misunderstands WP:NPOV. Wikipedia neutrally reports what reliable sources say. The reliable sources say -- regularly and without equivocation -- that Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist organization funded by a white supremacist foundation. As a result, Wikipedia says Jared Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist organization funded by a white supremacist foundation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I was giving them the chance to at least justify "but is denied by him".Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That argument has been tried before in many similar articles. It will not change anything in the article, so there is no reason to ask for justification of it here. This article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. What Taylor likes to say he is does not alter that in any way. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not, but we lose nothing by giving them that chance. And any uninvolved reader coming here will see we gave them every chance to make a case based on more than "Well I don't think its true". It is importnat to make sure we are fair and above board, rather than just being dismissive.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually JT has denied he is a "white supremacist". (On Amren's web site [2].) But like Summer has said....we call him the sandwich RS says he is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we can see he denies it (without knowing that it means), which we do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

He said he didn't know what "white nationalist" means. Not "white supremacist". His definition of "white supremacist" (accurate by most definitions, including ours) is in part the desire to "rule other races"....which he says he has no desire to.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, my mistake about what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We DO get into what Taylor says he is later in the article. I would take issue with the article (as well) if it just called him a white supremacist and didn't give his response to these accusations. We do.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Since when has the SPLC been a reliable and trustworthy source? It is a loony leftist sect spiting slander in all directions. The fact that they claim things that Taylor has never said says a lot about their honesty and intellect. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC has been examined for its reliability numerous times. Wikipedia considers it a reliable source, your opinions notwithstanding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick Comment

There is nonsense in this article. The article claims he was banned from Twitter in 2017, and that he tweeted having been banned from some zone in 2019. (Just right after the section where he was banned from twitter). I had a check at the article that cited that he tweeted having been banned from some zone in 2019. (Obviously, he could not have tweeted being banned from twitter at that time). And the article claims that he made that claim on his own website, not on twitter. Can someone makes a correction?93.146.44.150 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this got it.[3] Pretty hard to "tweet" anything when you've been deplatformed for hate speech. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

In the beginning of the article I recommend changing "American white supremacist" to "American author". As "white supremacist is a derogatory term and has a bias. Thanks much. InferableSpy (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — InferableSpy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'm sorry, how is that term derogatory? Or what is the bias? I mean, he believes in white superiority and racist ideology, so why should he be ashamed of that term? Also, the term is well-verified by secondary sources, no? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear kid, can you provide any facts confirming that Taylor "believes in white superiority and racist ideology"? First of all, he bases his claims on scientific evidence, not on any religious faith, so the first word in this quotation is clearly false. Second, he acknowledges that some abilities of the whites are 'inferior' to other races, so his alleged ideology of universal white superiority is your personal fantasy. And third, do you really want to tell me that acknowledging racial differences in certain abilities is 'racist ideology'? Do you want to sue Mother Nature that she did not create the world according to your wishes? 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RS say it so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the term 'white Asian supremacist'? Would you like it? 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is he Asian?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How isn't it derogatory? Being labeled one is enough to lose your livelihood and be attacked in the streets. What you're people are doing here is dangerous. How does him "believing in white superiority" goes along with the "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" part later in the article? Doesn't that make him an Asian supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumalojumalo (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Jumalojumalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, because reliable sources do not call him an "Asian supremacist". Further, very few, if any, reliable sources attempt to explain what "Asian supremacy" is, neither in theory, nor in practice. White supremacy, on the other hand, has over a century of scholarship behind it, which Taylor, as a supposed "intellectual", should know about. We know what white supremacy means, we know the ideology behind it, and we can easily point to policies and historical phenomena that support it. Taylor has a very well-documented history of supporting these policies and ideologies. This track record, more than his PR-minded deflections, are what sources are looking at.

I have no idea whether it's from some off-site playbook, or this is sock puppetry, or some other reason, but this "Asian supremacist" nonsense is tissue-thin, and remains completely unpersuasive no matter how many times brand new accounts bring it up on this talk page. Reliable, independent sources have evaluated Taylor's comments and come to the reasonable conclusion that he is a white supremacist based on his own publications. Pointing to some model minority as if it were a "gotcha" is meaningless for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources call him what he is: a white supremacist. That you, Jumalojumalo, feel he is some other variety of racist is as immaterial as his denial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jumalojumalo, I think the count of Nazis being punched in the streets stands at 1, this last decade. I'm not sure how many "lost their livelihood". I do know that Wikipedia doesn't practice political correctness; I think it's sad that we are asked to limit the truth because someone thinks this is somehow a derogatory term. I'm reminded of this tune; rejoice! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder where these [[WP:SPA#single purpose accounts are coming from. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the intro to this either (for some of the reasons you stated).....but the fact this is elaborated on later (in the "views" section; including the fact Mr. Taylor rejects such a notion) makes the article adequate for me. I do think it would be better to start out differently (perhaps saying he has been "described"/"called" a white supremacist).....but I do not contemplate any action (at this time).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I came here knowing nothing about this guy (except I heard he was banned from YouTube so I came here to see who he is and what he all about) and I’m extremely confused. The intro calls him a white supremacist, but in later sections the article says he rejects the label of “white supremacist”, and the article goes on to quote Jared Taylor himself as saying he believes Asians are superior to whites people in every calculable way. Having been born and raised in Japan (an ethnostate that openly calls for remaining an ethnostate and crafts their policies thusly) I don’t doubt he truly believes this. Both Merriam Webster and the Wikipedia article for “white supremacist” define it as someone who believes white people are superior to people of other races and that they should dominate or control the other races. I don’t know anything about this guy other than what I’ve read here so maybe I’m missing something, but so far I have seen no evidence that he wants to control other races. So he doesn’t believe whites are superior to other races and he doesn’t wish to control other races. Given all of the aforementioned, I submit that the term white supremacist is inaccurate and that a more accurate term would be white nationalist or white separatist. To call him a white supremacist, we would have to change or expand the definition of what qualifies one as a white supremacist to be completely equivocal to white nationalist, which blurs meaningful distinctions between the two, as well as gives people the wrong impression of who he is. Although the article includes in later sections empirical contradictions to the supremacist label, I believe the introduction should reflect accurately as well. I propose changing his label in the intro from White supremacist to white nationalist or white separatist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.234.97 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — 198.27.234.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not gather evidence, look up definitions, weigh the two against each other and decide whether or not Taylor is a white supremacist, Pluto is a planet, Christianity is monotheistic or anything else. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. Those sources clearly, repeatedly and without equivocation say that Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine through a white supremacist organization funded by a white supremacist foundation. As a result, Wikipedian says the same.

If independent reliable sources said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Jared Taylor is an American cheese sandwich" and debate whether we should link that to Cheese sandwich or to Cheese and Sandwich. Arguments that he is not a stack of bread and cheese with the cheese in the middle would be immaterial. If Taylor insisted that he is a tray of crudita, we would still say he is a cheese sandwich, though he says he is a tray of crudita (if reliable sources note him saying it).

Thus, Taylor is verifiably a white supremacist, though he says he isn't.

(Additionaly, we're really not in the habit of discussing the details of white supremacists in general compared to all of the terms they throw around to see if they can find something more palatable to label their hate: white nationalist, white sepratist, racialist, racial realist, etc. For the most part, reliable sources simply cut to the chase and say they are white supremacists, racists or, if they are a member of a specific club (e.g., neo-Nazis), they might identify them that way.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Summer, I agree with you.....but to fix the frequent complaints on this we get here....what would you think of adding Taylor's denial that he seeks to subjugate other races? It is contained in a link Slatersteven added recently: [4]. That still may not be sufficient for some....but it might make this more complete.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not interested in letting the subject of the article have his say in the article in order to satisfy his supporters. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Summer, I understand your first point but disagree with your second. White nationalist is not just a term people bandy about to make their position more palatable. It could be that, but it could also be, dispassionately speaking, simply a term that is distinct from white supremacist, and describes something different. Jared Taylor fits the definition for one, but not the other. I proposed the change not to make him sound more palatable, but for accuracy and to eliminate confusion. I’m no fan of the guy and I’m not his PR agent. I’m just someone who was very confused when reading the article and when I came to the talk page to seek clarity, I see others echoing the same confusion. Do you deny the two terms are different and describe different things? Or do you truly believe the two are one and the same? Because really, that is the point of confusion here —- dishonest conflation of two distinct terms. I’d like to know if it’s general intellectual sloppiness at play or if it’s agenda-driven and the ignorance is willful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.234.97 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Strange how often people post to talk pages with some variation of "I'm no fan of the guy", as if we are supposed to be swayed by that kind of thing. We don't care. Your faulty debate-club tactics are not conductive to improving article, so there is no reason to answer your loaded questions. You opinion that "white nationalism" is nuanced is both incorrect and totally irrelevant. Patience for these silly euphemistic games in defense of a "peaceful" ethnostate has been completely exhausted. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The distinction is simple. "White supremacists" believe that whites are better. "White nationalists" want this country to be all white because they believe whites are better. I do not care what term he is most comfortable with or prefers. Wikipedia uses the term regularly and repeatedly used by the majority of independent reliable sources to tell readers in terms regularly used by the majority of society what he is. That various segments of the racist margins of society want to "fine tune" the public presentation of their hate is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Change the sub-section title "Judaism and anti-Semitism" to "Attitudes toward Jews"

First of all, the sub-section is about Taylor's attitudes toward Jews, not Judaism; secondly, the "anti-Semitism" part is misleading, seeing as the body goes on to characterise Taylor as "unusual among the radical right in 'his lack of anti-Semitism'" and seeking to "draw the white nationalist circle wider to include Jews of European descent." Iroh (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.

Changing "Judaism" to "Jewish people" could be done if there's consensus, but the subsection title is in reference to Taylor's views on these topics. Since the section is discussing his supposedly soft views on antisemitism, this seems like an appropriate section title. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. Would "Attitudes toward Jews and anti-Semitism" work then, to clarify that the sub-section is about precisely that, his attitudes toward Jews and anti-Semitism? Iroh (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why, why changes this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a distinction to be drawn between Judaism and Jews, and because his attitudes toward anti-Semitism ought not to be mistaken as his anti-Semitism. Iroh (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, "Attitudes toward anti-Semitism and Jews" would probably be the best option of all. Iroh (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I see. I can live with "Attitudes toward anti-Semitism and Jews".Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can live with this, but it seems like it would be simpler to just say "Attitude toward Jews". His unwillingness to actively embrace antisemitism is only significant because it's unusual, but that's setting the bar awfully low. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my original proposal haha. I meant that "Attitudes toward anti-Semitism and Jews" would be the best option if "anti-Semitism" is to be included, but I still prefer simply "Attitudes toward Jews". Iroh (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, my comment was a mistake. The section discusses his attitude towards anti-Semites, such as David Duke. He neither "welcomes nor expels anti-Semitic voices". Since, obviously, Duke is not Jewish, placing this under "attitudes towards Jews" would be inaccurate. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose a third option would be "Attitudes toward anti-Semites and Jews". Either one works for me, really, as they'd all consitute an improvement to the current headline. Iroh (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell and Slatersteven: Could either of you make the change to "Attitudes toward anti-Semites and Jews" now? Iroh (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is NOT a white supremacist!!!!!!!

There are 5 sources which slanderously make the accusation that Taylor is a "white supremacist", a wildly bizarre and off base claim. So we should expect there to be some evidence in order to prove this claim. We note that when we click on the links to these sources, there is not a single shred of supporting evidence given.

I'm shocked that anyone could believe he is a "white supremacist". Ignorant and off base claims should be removed from wikipedia immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review this talk page and its archives, including your various attempts to not hear this over the past three years. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Multiple independent reliable sources repeatedly identify Taylor as a white supremacist who edits a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist publisher funded by a white supremacist foundation. Reliable sources do not need to provide "proof" of what they say. That they say it makes it verifiable. Taylor is verifiably a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Then find an RS that says he is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that Taylor wishes to dominate other groups of people. Unless you can find just one example of him ever saying this, then I strongly suggest removing the white supremacist label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

When you find an RS saying he is not we can discus removing it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@KevinGrem: Taylor has indeed stated that he does not wish for white people to rule over others. However, sources considered reliable by Wikipedia do describe him as a "white supremacist", I would presume either because they define white supremacism merely as the belief in biological racial differences and/or the promotion of racial separatism (which would actually contradict Wikipedia's definion of the term), or because they're not accurately representing his views. Either way, I doubt you will have much success in trying to affect any change here on this matter. Iroh (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a misconception about sources which we've seen several times on this talk page. Taylor is really a white supremacist per reliable sources, the academic definition of white supremacy, and Wikipedia's definition of white supremacy. This supposed discrepancy with Wikipedia's definition is shallow, if it exists at all. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To get a definition for a complicated topic from an article we have to read past the very first paragraph. For example, White supremacy says this: The term is also used to describe the development of this belief into a political ideology that imposes and maintains social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people. Many of Taylor's policy ideas are (by design) either extremely vague or extremely bland when taken at face value. A reliable source is reliable because it looks deeper at these things. Sources look at the implications of these positions and strip-away the blandness. They look at the discussions he fosters, the people he treats as his intellectual equals, and the books by other people he actively promotes. If this paints a picture which is at odds with the words he uses to describe himself, so be it. Wikipedia relies on sources to perform this analysis, and the conclusions these sources come to should not be surprising. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

KevinGrem: You've been pursuing this argument intermittently for several years. Search the talk archives and re-read the responses. Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly state that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist editor of a white supremacist magazine from a white supremacist publisher funded by a white supremacist foundation.

Unless and until Wikipedia changes its core principles -- including, but not limited to, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT -- Wikipedia will continue to verifiably, neutrally report that he is a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's own definition of white supremacy, Taylor is not a white supremacist. This page should be edited to say "Taylor has been described as a white supremacist", because that is factual. But until there is any evidence provided that Taylor is in a fact a white supremacist, then the article as currently reported is clearly bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 01:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you seem to not understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Independent reliable sources repeatedly and regularly directly state that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist. As a result, Wikipedia neutrally and verifiably states that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist.

Wikipedia does not decide if independent reliable sources are "right". Wikipedia does not examine evidence. Wikipedia does not demand that independent reliable sources "prove" what they say.

If independent reliable sources said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich." We would not attempt to figure out what makes something a cheese sandwich, whether Taylor is made of cheese and bread or try to find sources that match our belief that Taylor is not a cheese sandwich. Wikipedia would say "Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The above, they are RS because they operate to a certain level of accuracy. If they make false claims they can be sued, if they are not we have no reason to think the claims are false.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why Jared Taylor is not a white supremacist

Taylor explains in length to this interviewer why he is not a white supremacist: https://www.amren.com/videos/2020/08/interview-with-an-israeli-journalist/ Starting at 0'32". As to the reliable sources, I can think of no better than Taylor himself. Unless you want to mix "separatism" with "supremacism", this does not stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomFaBis (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, of course he denies it, RES say he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. In the matter, Jared Taylor is the best place to define what Jared Taylor thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomFaBis (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, it's the best place to determines what he wants you to think he is. And "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true" can be just as easily applied to Mr Taylor, as I said, of course, HE denies it. That does not make it true.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Except HE never, ever advocated for a white supremacy over other ethnicities, races, other non-white groups of people, however one might want to call it; he merely says different races aren't meant to live together in the same place. I'd gladly accept being proven wrong on that particular matter if that was possible, but it's not. Pardon me, but this is called putting words in someone else's mouth. Understand, I'm not even saying what he claims is right or wrong, which is irrelevant anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomFaBis (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry, that was innacurate: Taylor doesn't "say different races aren't meant to live together in the same place", he defends the right for white people to live on their own in their homelands (i.e. "separation"). Surely you understand why, in this case, the word "supremacy" is wrong, innacurate and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomFaBis (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:or, we do not do our own analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I take it the Wikipedia community/moderators won't mind if I write a brief description of Taylor's thesis in his own words, and how he defends himself from being a supremacist? If only, for exhaustiviteness' sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomFaBis (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, if he denies it (and says "I deny it") you could say that. What we should not have is some exhaustive cometary which does not actually say "I deny this". One line saying "he denies this" is the best you could have.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an important nuance, and as you stated, this is not about me.

What? When did I say this was about you? Can you also please read wp:indent, it will make it easier to see the flow of this conversation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Name of German Party

The name of the German party mentioned in the article is "Alternative für Deutschland" not "Alternativ für Deutschland" (missing 'e' at the end of "Alternativ"). --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Slatersteven GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is Japanese

I feel that, to bring this article in line with standard practice on Wikipedia, he should be described by the place he was born and grew up in. He is not American, he is Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.128.130 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You need a source saying he is either ethnically Japanesee or has a Japanese passport. Other wise he is neither Japanese nor a Japanese national.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

White Supremacy / Can we have some consistency?

Wikipedia defines white supremacy as "...the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them." Jared Taylor has done MULTIPLE interviews in which he denies that he is a white supremacist. He even did an entire video on the term and the characterization against him, "Who is a White Supremacist?" At the very most I would say that he's a white nationalist since he has advocated on behalf of racial separatism and the "self-determination" of white people. I've seen a lot of the discussions here saying "reliable sources say this, reliable sources say that" and I just have this to say; I think the most reliable source to determine who Jared Taylor is, is Jared Taylor.

I would strongly urge the folks at Wikipedia to HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY. I don't even really like Jared Taylor that much yet if they can't even stick to their own definitions, I don't know how Wikipedia can still purport itself to be this neutral, unbiased, and ultimately informative arbiter of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, HE denies it, RS have said he is. There is no inconsistency, as out policies say (see wp:v and wp:rs we go with what RS say. So if they have decided his "belief is "that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them" that is what we reflect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You've missed my point. If Jared Taylor doesn't fit the definition of white supremacy (he doesn't since he doesn't believe whites are superior to people of other races nor does he believe they should dominate people of other races) in addition to what "credible sources" say about white supremacy, then there's a huge gray area here. Wikipedia at once wants to provide a neutral and impartial description on certain people but at the same time refers to "credible sources" who aren't even consistent on their own definitions. If a "credible source" (which is already subjective, by the way) says that Jared Taylor is a pizza, that doesn't make Jared Taylor a pizza because he doesn't call himself a pizza, nor does he fit what "credible sources" say about the definition of a pizza, then is Jared Taylor really a pizza? This is comically absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that myself and other editors have also been trying to explain the concept that Wikipedia describes subjects how they are described in reliable sources, not how they describe themselves, to this editor at Talk:Nick Fuentes. They are making largely the same argument here. ZoomerEnlightenment, again, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources." GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, If reliable sources call Jared Taylor a white supremacist, yet Jared Taylor does not fit the definition of "white supremacist" that reliable sources conclude, then is Jared Taylor really a white supremacist? You've seemed to fall back to "well, reliable sources say this so we are going to take their word for it, no matter how inconsistent and fallacious it is." If this is the case, perhaps you should change your policy since this leaves a huge gray area for Wikipedia's reliability, and nearly anyone can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe he does fits A definition of "white supremacist", just not one definition of "white supremacist". Or maybe they look at all he says and decide that as he says "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.” he is saying whites are better than blacks. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is another point you've tried to make at the Fuentes article, and I'll reply largely how I replied there. It is you who is saying that Taylor's (and Fuentes') views don't align with RS definitions of white supremacy/white nationalism. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it is not some objective or obvious fact as you are suggesting. To me it is obvious that Taylor's views do align with white supremacy. And this is why we must rely on reliable sources, and why neither your opinion of him, nor mine, nor any other editor's should dictate how this article is written. I'm sure if you were to poll Wikipedians for their general opinions on Taylor's views and whether or not they aligned with white supremacy you would get about as many different answers as people you asked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is about ZoomerEnlightenment's personal opinions. We don't select references according to personal biases. --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@ZoomerEnlightenment: Jared Taylor has done MULTIPLE interviews in which he denies that he is a white supremacist Can you provide links/quotes/etc? (Ideally written sources rather than video or audio, since written sources are easier to quote from.) I think, if some people say he is one, but he insists he is not, then the article ought to include his own point of view on that topic. Mr248 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248: WP:MANDY GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, That's not a policy or official guideline, that's just an opinion essay. I think if an article is going to make negative claims about an article subject, the article ought to include the subject's point of view on those claims, if they've expressed one. Mr248 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE, however, is policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't see how WP:FALSEBALANCE is relevant here. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. If someone is called a label which is near universally viewed negatively, and they insist the label isn't an accurate statement of their own beliefs, that isn't anything comparable to a claim that the Earth is flat. Their own position on what their own beliefs are is highly relevant to an article about themselves. It can't be compared to a WP:FRINGE view in some article about something other than themselves. Jared Taylor has no right to expect his views on e.g race to be included in the article race, and it would indeed be false balance to cite his views on the topic there if they are in fact fringe or minority views (and I'm pretty sure they are). But it isn't false balance to cite a person's statement of their own views in an article about themselves, if they don't agree with how their views have been characterised. Mr248 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Alsi wp:blp and wp:sps might come into play, we can't quote him if it can be seen as undualy self-serving.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I don't see how it is "unduly self-serving", if a RS says "X believes Y", to include a quote from X (even a self-published one) saying "I don't believe Y". Mr248 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We do say he denies it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, so WP:MANDY isn't even being followed in this article. (Which is good, because WP:MANDY is bad.) I think however that if we have sources saying "X believes Y" and X themselves insists that they don't, and the claim "X believes Y" is put in the lede while the fact that they deny that claim is half-way down the article, I don't think that's right. If the "X believes Y" is in the lede, their denial of that belief should be in the lede as well. Mr248 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The leader is a summery of the article, its hard to surmise "but he denies it".Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I don't think it would be hard to surmise. The article could start with a paragraph like this: Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American author, and editor of the online magazine, American Renaissance, which was founded by Taylor in 1990. Journalists and academic researchers state that Taylor is a white supremacist; Taylor disagrees with that label. That puts the fact that sources call him a white supremacist, and the fact that he disagrees with that label for himself, in the lede. It omits calling the magazine by that label, but I don't think that's a significant omission–the article applies the label to the magazine later on as well. It has a two sentence opening paragraph instead of one, but I don't think an opening paragraph has to be a single sentence. Mr248 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that (as GW points out) is that we give equal weight to his views as a large number of RS. This is something we should not do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Slatersteven I think we have to distinguish articles about a person who is mainly notable for their beliefs, and articles about other topics. I agree that in an article about Apollo 11, it wouldn't be appropriate to mention Moon landing conspiracy theories in the lede. However, in article about a person mainly notable for their beliefs and opinions, if the lede says they believe X, and they insist they do not, I think their own statement of their own beliefs should be mentioned in the lede. Imagine if 50 journalists decided to write articles tomorrow claiming you believed X, when you don't agree that's what you believe. Why shouldn't an article on you include your own position on what your own beliefs are in the lede? Everyone is an expert on their own beliefs, and a person's statements of what their own beliefs are carries at least as much weight as a dozen journalists' claims about what they believe. Mr248 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY summarizes my opinions pretty well. RS don't appear to give his denials much airtime, since for one his positions directly support that he is a white supremacist, and for two his denials are arguably not even denials (he "has 'strenuously rejected' being called a racist, and maintains that he is instead a 'racialist who believes in race-realism'"). We reflect reliable sources. As for your suggestion that WP:FALSEBALANCE applies differently (or ought to?) by topic area, that is not the case. We do have some specific policies for BLPs, but those do not oblige us to be the LP's mouthpiece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, his positions directly support that he is a white supremacist As I asked in the other section below, does his claim that "Asians are objectively superior to Whites" directly support that he is a white supremacist? If someone believes that white people are superior to other races, wouldn't they say instead the complete opposite, that "Whites are objectively superior to Asians"? Mr248 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into an OR discussion with you of whether Taylor's views are white supremacist; RS have already established that for us. People say all kinds of apparently contradictory things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

a person's statements of what their own beliefs are carries at least as much weight as a dozen journalists' claims about what they believe. Just the opposite, otherwise it is WP:SOAP and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Only if RS think they do. All kinds of people deny all kinds of things (even after in some cases courts have found them guilty). We go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think there is a big difference between being convicted of a crime yet still insisting that one is innocent, and disagreeing with how others characterise one's own opinions. Legal judgements have an objective status which opinions about beliefs of others–even those expressed by journalists or academics–lack. Mr248 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, as I said, I don't think it is FALSEBALANCE in an article about a person who is notable primarily for their beliefs and opinions, to weigh their own expertise with respect to their own beliefs equally with the claimed expertise of third parties, even published sources by journalists and academics. Each individual has a special expertise in the contents of their own beliefs which is uniquely possessed by them. I also don't think it is WP:SOAP, if an article about a person primarily notable for their beliefs and opinions, includes their own point of view about what those beliefs and opinions are. If they (or someone else) started putting their opinions in articles on topics other than themselves, that would indeed likely be SOAP. Mr248 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I think a person is an RS with respect to their own beliefs and opinions. And if we cite contradictory information without commenting on the contradiction, that confuses readers. Mr248 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a fine opinion for you to personally hold, but it does not fall in line with policy. It would be undue weight to include in the lead, and is arguably too much weight where it is in the body. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, That's a fine opinion for you to personally hold, but it does not fall in line with policy Which opinion of mine are you referring to? The opinion that a person is an RS on the contents of their own beliefs? I mean, isn't it just common-sense that you are a reliable source as to what your own beliefs are? Are you telling me that you are not a reliable source on your own beliefs? Is it Wikipedia's policy that you are not a reliable source on your own beliefs? If 10 journalists write articles saying "GorillaWarfare believes that the earth is flat", then is the claim of those journalists more reliable than your denial that you believe that? Mr248 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ABOUTSELF. Yes, if many reputable sources say that I believe the earth is flat, and I deny it, my denial should not be presented as equivalently weighty as the RS coverage (unless RS give it similar weight). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here @ about 28 min. in [5]. Here too: [6] (right off the bat). But as Slatersteven has noted, we already note in the article his rejection of this term. We call him that as per what RS calls him (to go back to the oft-used ham sandwich analogy summerPhD used).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248: Currently Taylor's own descriptors of his views are given quite a lot of prominence compared to descriptors in reliable sources. Many reliable sources mention that Taylor is a white supremacist; I have seen far fewer that give his denial much coverage beyond perhaps right of reply, and they don't seem to give them much credence (for example cite 30). Including both in the lead, would be worsen the false balance already in this article, unless my understanding of the weight in RS is extremely mistaken. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't agree that WP:ABOUTSELF is relevant here. It nowhere discusses the specific issue of whether a person is a reliable source for claims about their own beliefs. A person has a special expertise in the question of what they believe, because they know their own beliefs better than anyone else can, and because they have the freedom to change and modify their beliefs at any point in time. A person does not have a special expertise in non-belief claims about themselves–if I claim to be the King of France, I am not a reliable source for that claim, for being a King of France is not a subjective fact about one's own beliefs and desires, it is an objective fact about whether one is accepted by others as having a certain legal and social role. If you deny believing that the earth is flat, then your denial is a RS for the claim that you don't believe the earth is flat, because you have unique expertise in, access to, and control over, your own beliefs. Mr248 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You disagree about the application of multiple policies. You're not going to find consensus in that manner. Please drop it. --Hipal (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, People have to discuss how policies are applied and which policies are relevant in any particular case. If people have a disagreement about how policies are applied, it should be discussed rather than telling people to go away. Mr248 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy for how we use statements by an article subject in the article about that subject, regardless of whether they're discussing their beliefs or their status as the King of France or anything else. If you think it ought to be changed, that'd be a discussion for WT:V, not here. If there is discussion of Taylor's views in reliable, secondary sources, ABOUTSELF does not apply and so that can be discussed independently, but if you're just discussing what the subject said somewhere, we need to consider ABOUTSELF. You've moved into hypotheticals about my beliefs and so it's a little hard to know at this point what you're actually suggesting, but I'd recommend we try to bring this back to actual specific changes to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

Article begins by saying that Taylor is a "white supremacist". The white supremacy article says "White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them". This article quotes Jared Taylor as saying "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." (I think the idea that any "race" is superior to any other is arrant nonsense, but the article is about what Taylor believes, not what I do.) Some readers are going to be confused by an article which claims that Taylor believes that white people are superior to other races, but also quotes him as saying that Asian people are superior to white people. The two claims "white people are superior to those of other races" (which logically must include Asian people) and "Asians are objectively superior to Whites" are logically contradictory. Do RS explain this apparent contradiction? Mr248 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this above, we do not need two separate discussions on more or less the same issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I made it a subsection. It is about the same overarching topic, but I see it as a distinct issue within that topic. Mr248 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses RS and whatever they decide to say. Unfortunately, this is the ridiculous take they decide to take that should speak loud words to everyone; Wikipedia is not unbiased. My only question for Wikipedia is this; does RS decide that RS are RS? If not, who decides what RS are? By what standard do you go by? --ZoomerEnlightenment (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

THis one wp:rs, and if you think a source should not be (or should be) an rs you take it here wp:rsn for the community to decide. But to answer quickly the basic standard is "does it in fact tell outright lies on a regular basis".Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

link to

"Sam Francis" article missing from influences section. Would have added it myself, but I don't have enough edits to meet the "30/500" criterion. KVWS (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done [7]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Change the lede

I move we change the lede to: Jared Taylor is an American White Advocate.

172.58.60.160 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Taylor himself 172.58.63.97 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable, independent sources have to say about subjects, not what subjects have to say about themselves. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

The article saying he is a white supremacist is an opinion and the sources are opinion pieces. I think the article needs to be changed from white supremacist to white nationalist, because that is what Jared Taylor has said about himself, and he has denied being a white supremacist. I also believe this will be a good compromise on the page because this nation (USA) needs to start compromising or it will fall apart. 68.42.245.120 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That you disagree with the cited reliable sources describing him as a white supremacist is irrelevant. We aren't required to "compromise" with racism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended Protection

Hi. I was wondering why Jared Taylor's article has Extended Protection. Thank you. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

From the protection log, it looks like it was for "persistent disruptive editing." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. I appreciate the response, and, by extension, you. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How are you going to call Taylor a WS

This is an encyclopedia for heaven’s sake, can we get a citation for that?

I’ve watched hours of his content & the accusation is ridiculous. 173.32.98.38 (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Because wp:rs (who have also watched his videos) say he is, and your wp:or does not trump the opinions of rs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Stupid rely function, IP didn't bother to see there are 5 sources in the lead. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask how this is a reliable source? The author of the article cited to call him a white supremacist offers this without qualification. Merely saying "unlike other WS, he's not an antisemite" doesn't seem like solid grounding to base throwing around accusations like this. Even if you were to keep the "accusations" of being a WS, this would be more accurate, but "is" doesn't seem to be accurate at all. Antenora (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

For instance, from comparisons with other articles I've read, wouldn't something like "is an American author and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine espousing such opinions, which was founded by Taylor in 1990." followed by "Taylor and many of his affiliated organizations are accused of promoting racist ideologies by civil rights groups, news media, and academics studying racism in the United States. He is often labeled as a white supremacist by these same organizations, although he denies the allegations and refers to himself as a "race realist" and "white advocate." This seems objectively more accurate than taking the opinions of even reliable sources as fact. Antenora (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read the article and the 6 other sources. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Why can we say this, because no RS contest it, so ther is o controversy, no two sides to give balance to. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the sources cited throughout the article, Carol Swain, does not refer to Jared Taylor as a white supremacist. In fact, she goes out of her way to avoid using the phrase and uses the two terms I listed above that he uses to describe himself. Even the SPLC avoids calling him a white supremacist and instead lists him as a "white nationalist" and that he is "a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist." This seems like a more accurate statement than "is". 72.217.4.156 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The RS included as predominately opinion columnists, with the exception being the Anti-immigration book by Morgenstern. As I mentioned above, she mentions that he is a white supremacist without qualification and in passing to point out that he isn't anti-Semitic. She also provides no references for this. One of the citations is a primarily fiction writer, with most of his nonfiction work being on cryptozoology. 72.217.4.156 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

white nationalist noun pluralwhite nationalists

one of a group of militant white people who espouse white supremacy (see WHITE SUPREMACY sense 1) and advocate enforced racial segregation

So if he is a white nationalist, that is another term for white supemacist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not the definition of "white nationalist" used in the Wikipedia article on White Nationalism or the definition given on the SPLC website. I don't think either of you are being honest in this discussion, and this conversation sounds motivated by a political animus, which is unfortunate, even if I agree with it and it is well-intentioned. As an academic studying extremism tied to right-wing extremist groups, we are held to a certain standard with how we use these terms, and it would be helpful for public communication if the sources laypeople rely on to become informed about these topics accurately reflected the nuance in these different groups. 2600:8800:2194:9700:78D5:125A:928E:346E (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Its the definition form

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationalist

And

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white_nationalist

And every other dictionary I can find.

And from White nationalism "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism." and "White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts." Ass8ushc we need sources saying he is not in fact this type of white nationalist. And yes we do have a standard, wp:rs and wp:unude, if all RS say X e say X, we can only not say X if there are RS that challenged that voew, challenged not just not give. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

sources

sources 71.223.84.215 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you wish to discus some? Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Jared Taylor and Jesse Jackson: Nothing could be more incongruous than the inclusion of this picture in the entry about the white supremacist. An otherwise excellent article is marred by a photo of Rev. Jackson shaking hands with the American Renaissance leader. Without casting doubt on the authenticity of the photograph, there can be no doubt that its implications are wrong. The picture by its very existence implies cordiality between two men whose lives could be more different. Putting this picture there is pure deceit. The photo should be replaced by one featuring Taylor with someone else. 2600:1700:F610:DB00:81A8:FE09:12B7:89FD (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that cast doubt on it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)