Jump to content

Talk:Richard B. Spencer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:AlternativeRight.com)


I´ve tried to create new categories for people deported from Iceland and Hungary

[edit]

so please don´t delete them, even though they´re currently highlighted in red I think an administrator needs to approve them. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the Antisemitism sidebar should be removed

[edit]

Not because he hasn´t said a number of Antisemitic thing, but because it is not even a prominent element within a his writtings or ideology from what I can tell. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly because i do not view him as neo nazi (to addres @TrickshotsBSYT point at the top), someone who is inspired by the German Conservative Revolution and various strands of fascism, but Neonazi is a far too narrow way of framing his ideological outlook. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The man is an openly anti-Semitic white supremacist and, contrary to the personal opinion of StrongALPHA there are reliable sources that describe him as a neo-nazi. Regardless being a neo-nazi is not the only way in which a conservative ethno-nationalist might be an active force of antisemitism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 is absolutely right here. The attempt at the BLP noticeboard to sanitize Spencer's image largely ignored the fact that Spencer himself (and maybe a few other white supremacists) is the only one saying "I'm not a Nazi/white supremacist" et al., and reliable sources do say that he is, as recently as an article from October 2023 (I added that one as a source). Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 18 doesn't support claim

[edit]

citation 18 doesn't support the claim that Spencer voted for Biden. 73.26.189.174 (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we do not say he did. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also does not support the claim that he "supports" biden and is against the "alt-right" now. The quoted source is a random right-wing opinion/blog article. PhDaemon (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean this source, which is published by Tablet (magazine) in their 'News & Politics' section. This doesn't appear to be a opinion piece, and the author, Joshua Tait, is a PhD historian who has contributed to published academic work specifically on far-right politics in the US (ISBN 9780190877590). Here's the specific relevant quote from the source: In that respect, [Richard Hanania's] evolution has mirrored the strange career of Spencer who, in the wake of Charlottesville, has attempted to distance himself from his leadership of the alt-right, rebranding himself with public statements attacking Trump, and voicing support for NATO and the Biden White House. The current wording in the article seems like a reasonable summary of this source. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell:, you make some good points, but I do feel some recent edits (not yours) misrepresent what Tait is actually saying in that piece. He's saying the alt-right collapsed after Charlottesville (one could debate that, I guess, but I personally feel that's Tait's opinion alone) and so it's not so much that Spencer is no longer a leader of the alt-right - it's that there is no alt-right to lead anymore. At least, that's what Tait is saying. It's easy for Spencer to disavow a "movement" that largely lost all of its support and momentum. The adherents simply "reinvented themselves as centrists", which are Tait's words. It was a rebranding because the alt-right branding, in their view, had become toxic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: and @Fred Zepelin: I concur with Tait in Tablet, that there is no alt-right anymore. (I'm not sure what to make of Richard Hanania!) The sources for this article are REALLY bad in general. Lots of HuffPo not-even-articles from the ex-wife whom even Wiki-voice acknowledges that Spencer was not found guilty of any of the lurid allegations first introduced in their divorce proceedings, e.g. that he pushed her into an oven while pregnant. Also, the sole source for his date of birth/age in the infobox is his own tweet, which only contains 4 images of people he admires (I recognize Salvador Dali; not sure about the other three but I think they've all been dead for decades.) I probably will get reverted and sent to an ANI of some sort if I make any edits here, but maybe I'll try a few and see how it goes. I think the Tablet source is a good one and should be kept.--FeralOink (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots? we cite the huffington post 5 times (out of 174, cites), of those 3 are about being used for one paragraph about the accusations made by his wife. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding HuffPo, I specifically referred to the allegations made by his wife. That paragraph probably shouldn't be included in a BLP. 3 cites to HuffPo "contributor" or "impressions" or whatever it is called is too many for one section. I'm not going to dissect this with you. If you want the HuffPo, keep the HuffPo. Why is his birthdate sourced to his own twitter tweet about four of his favorite people?--FeralOink (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update tag

[edit]

@CzarJobKhaya: Hello. Per #Lead section is seriously outdated above, we can only update the article with reliable sources. If you know of such sources, or wish to suggest other actionable changes, please do so, otherwise this tag is not helpful and is unlikely to lead to improvements to the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any reliable sources that could be used to update the article, but it still feels outdated to me. My only intention with the tag was informing the reader rather than spurring potential edits. Thanks. CzarJobKhaya (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we're only permitted to inform the reader about what is published in reliable sources. Anything else violates our core policy of no original research. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thoughts about much of the article being out of date too! As the General said, the problem is that we don't have any WP:RS and WP:NPOV acceptable sources to use for updates. I looked. He hasn't done much since 2019 or so, because his life really blew up at that point. Or he blew up his life, however one wants to look at it. Regardless, without coverage of his activities, there isn't anything we can do to make this BLP more current.--FeralOink (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sort of recent sources discussing Spencer, e.g. SPLC's "'Unite the Right' 5 Years Later: Where Are They Now?" from 2022, but because these sources contain Spencer denouncing his previous views (at least nominally), some editors have pushed for their exclusion in order to continue to paint Spencer as an outspoken racist. I think there are good reasons to question Spencer's sincerity, but I think we should prominently include them for BLP reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What will we use them for, as we already have his denials? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with him no longer being an effective leader of the movement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed more than that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not speak in riddles? What part of my edit do you actually object to? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is telling you you did more than just "I have updated the article with him no longer being an effective leader of the movement." speaking in riddles, you know what changes you made (which I reverted), and added by the one change you said you made. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because your revert summary the accusation that his deianls [sic] arenot [sic] genuine are not trumped by oterh [sic] soruces from 2022 is frankly vague. Spencer has (at least nominally) disavowed his previous views, even if you don't think these denials are genuine. Just because someone is odious doesn't mean that BLP doesn't apply to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is covered in the body, which the lede summarises, thus we do not white wash the lede. Yes BLP applies to them, and that includes not being overly credulous of their claims when RS is not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is about treating BLP subjects with sensitivity. I hardly see how this includes not being overly credulous of their claims when RS is not. That comes under WP:NPOV. Ignoring Spencer's (at least nominal) disavowal in the lead section feels more like OR/SYNTH based on an (understandable) dislike of Spencer and a desire to downplay his statements, rather than actually any attempt to follow the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that a BLP can't accept a subjects own claim about themselves as facts, if RS claims it is not true. BLP's can't be "unduly self-serving". By the way we do not ignore it "in one text exchange in 2022, he told a journalist that he "no longer identifies as a white nationalist."" Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hemiauchenia's rationale for updating the article with the sources used, and thus it only makes sense to roll-back Slatersteven's removal of that content. This is a BLP and the same rules apply to everyone.--FeralOink (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is wrong.

[edit]

"neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist." Have any Wikipedia overlords actually listened to any of his views? He's literally none of those things. 2601:341:8100:B420:F826:B639:CE03:F8CE (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make that decision (read wp:or), wp:rs and and we just repeat them. If it is false take it up with them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_B._Spencer&oldid=1238811107"