Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Repetition

In Ideology, we have "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." repeated. That is not their own views. Things like these should be kept in a Reception or Criticism section. Putting it in Ideology is WP:POV. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I get tired of harping on this, but here goes, again: An organization or individual's definition of themselves is a primary source. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources for information in articles, when they're available, and in this case, they're plentiful and readily available. End of story. Rockypedia (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the quote, and believe it belongs, and ideology is as good a place as any. The quote is currently included in both sections, however, which is unnecessarily repetitive. It's also improperly sourced. It should be to <ref name="post-gazette.com"> instead of <ref name="differences"> There are two quotes attributed to Intelligence Report, but the "cultivated" one is from a Post Gazette article which interviews the magazine's editor, not the magazine itself. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Designation as a hate group by the SPLC

There are no proper citations supporting the claims in this section. Unless some are provided, I propose to delete it. I'll wait a day or two for editors to fix things.

Specifically, reference 12 is a list of "Active White Nationalist Groups", not "Hate Groups". Reference 3 is a rant about writers, and mentions American Renaissance only as a place where some of their writings have appeared. Reference 11 is a general reference that does not support the claims made. Lou Sander (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply search the SPLC site to fix reference 12? I've removed the text not backed by a source, and fixed the rest - new url for reference 11 and a new source for the first quote. Of course, you could have done that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Plain-speaking answer: I didn't search the SPLC site because HERE. Also because I'm not in favor of name-calling, especially the IMHO verging-on-hate-speech variety that calls people "klansmen". I hope I don't have a responsibility to dig through what I feel and think are offensive sources to track down citations for that sort of thing. Lou Sander (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the SPLC isn't a good excuse for not doing due diligence. And I see no name-calling. "Klansmen" is mentioned in the sentence " He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." And modern-days Klansmen (and women) exist, eg [] He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen. Look, I can show them to you - a picture of some of them last year.[1]. No name-calling there. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I hope you aren't saying that I have a responsibility to dig through what I feel and think are offensive sources to track down citations. (I could have, perhaps, said "drink from the SPLC cesspool" instead of "dig through offensive sources", but that would be using loaded language, or maybe even, indirectly, name-calling. IMHO, encyclopedias are better if they stay away from peacock words and other loaded language.) I think I did the right thing by inviting others to do something distasteful (to me) that I was unwilling to do myself. Lou Sander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that wasn't a peacock word, unless you think Klansmen are a figment of someone's imagination. Sadly anyone who edits articles about racist organisations such as this one has to dig through cesspools sometimes. As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. You get to choose which articles you edit. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course you could have read the comment above yours first which explained the problem and helped me fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what comment you mean. Lou Sander (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell's which mentions that there were two sources. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It takes a pretty close reading of that whole section to see that it applies to weak sources for the quotation it discusses (which it sort of does, of course). I love Wikipedia, and I think I'm pretty diligent about what I do here, but I've only got so much time for it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Lead and the sources

Lou Sander (talk) left a note on my talk page saying "Washington Post and Fortune magazine claims in the lead are not supported in the body of the article." I'll be adding more detail in the body, but meanwhile, I asked to move this discussion to here, as I felt it would get more editors involved than if it were on my talk page. I have an issue with the word "claims", as I feel the two sources he mentioned are well-established as reliable, and they're certainly not the only two that describe AmRen as a white supremacist publication. I'm also not sure if Lou's problem is that the body of this Wikipedia article doesn't include the white supremacist description, or if the articles on the websites are what he feels do not support that description. Rockypedia (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Claims" refers to the material in the article; claims need to be supported by appropriate "references" or "citations" from reliable sources. Nobody is questioning the reliability of your sources. It's just that the intro needs to summarize material (the claims) that appears in the body of the article. You added references to the intro that weren't even mentioned in the article. Also, it isn't a good thing, when stating claims, to merely say that "X calls Y an idiot". You need to give us some context from the Washington Post and Fortune articles, supporting why they say X is Y, not just that they characterized X as Y. See WP:CHERRYPICKING. Lou Sander (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you're cherry-picking from WP:CHERRYPICKING. From the very first sentence: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says" - none of those sources include contradictory or qualifying info that would change anything; in fact, those sources clearly state what AmRen and Jared Taylor are: white nationalist, white supremacist, racist. I don't see how you could possible misinterpret any of that. Care to elaborate? Rockypedia (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

More Southern Poverty Law Center

Now that its citations are in order, IMHO the SPLC subsection's name should be changed just to "Southern Poverty Law Center", which would be more indicative of its contents (which are not just "hate group" stuff), and to make it parallel with its following subsections such as "Anti-Defamation League". Lou Sander (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Done

I have wrestled with reference #13, "differences", and made the following changes: 1) made the citation point directly to the article, rather than to the main page of the publication; 2) Corrected the title of the article; 3) Added material to complete the thought expressed in the reference.

The claim to which the reference refers still appears in two places, very close together in the article. The first is in the Ideology section. The second is in the Southern Poverty Law Center subsection, a mere three short paragraphs later. The Ideology section is extremely weak, consisting only of this claim and one unreferenced other. The claim and its reference apply most directly to SPLC. IMHO they should be removed from the Ideology section ( Done), which should then be deleted or beefed up, depending on the views and skills of the editors with an interest in the topic. There is a lot more to this magazine's ideology than is expressed in the present section. Lou Sander (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have missed my comment above, so I will copy and paste it again to make sure you see it: An organization or individual's definition of themselves (or their ideology) is a primary source. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources for information in articles, when they're available, and in this case, they're plentiful and readily available. Rockypedia (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We all know about using secondary sources. Primary sources may be used, for example, to state an organization's claims about its ideology. Commenting on those claims is not allowed. See WP:PRIMARY for details. I don't think that secondary sources about AmRen's ideology are very plentiful at all (as opposed to sources that merely characterize AmRen in disparaging terms). If handled properly, the latter are OK to use in sections like Reception and Controversy. Lou Sander (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says nothing about "Primary sources may be used to state an organization's claims about its ideology." You just made that up.

For your second claim - So if a secondary source characterizes AmRen in terms that you find disparaging, it's not a source? Because that's basically what you just said. Sorry, you don't get to create Wikipedia policy on this talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please settle down. I had assumed you could read what is in WP:PRIMARY and see how it might apply to examples not explicitly stated there. Also, we are all trying to improve the article here -- please stop scolding me. I regard it as a borderline personal attack. Lou Sander (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh heavens no, I'm not scolding you. I'm not personally attacking you. And telling me to settle down in an attempt to portray yourself as the calm voice of reason - that's funny. I'm simply calling you out for cherry-picking, wiki-lawyering, and acting surprised and offended when people tell you that you're doing these things. You're not trying to improve the article - every single one of your edits is designed with the goal of sanitizing the article by removing or playing down references to white supremacism and/or racist ideologies, while attempting to twist wikipedia rules into some shape that you think will help you achieve those goals. I don't know what your true motivation is and I don't care. Sources say what they say, and that's what stays in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

I have added some ideology to the article, as stated by American Renaissance themselves. I believe I have rigorously complied with the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. Lou Sander (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sort of. You missed the part that says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The statement of ideology is a direct quote, and presented as such, so that part seems okay, although I'm not sure Wikipedia should be a billboard for the ideology of every group that has an article. I'd like to see some other editors weigh in on that.

Including that tidbit about Jefferson, however, isn't significant enough on its own to merit a mention in the article; is it significant every time a website quotes a Founding Father? If it isn't (I would argue that it isn't) then it feels like you're interpreting it yourself to try to add some kind of gravitas to the magazine, and that's WP:OR. So, while you've made a bold addition, I'm reverting that part of it, because I don't feel it's significant that they quote TJ all over the website, and I find no secondary sources that make mention of it. Rockypedia (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not delete properly sourced material without discussing it here first. Give us your justification and see if anybody buys it. What you think isn't very significant unless there is some consensus about it. If you have something positive to contribute to the Ideology section, it would be great to see it. Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You adding that material is the BOLD part of WP:CYCLE. I reverted it because it's trivial and you'd have to use WP:OR to justify including it. That's the REVERT part of WP:CYCLE. Now we're in the discussion part (see below). I'd appreciate if you'd knock off the doubletalk and stop trying to protray me as the guy breaking rules, when in fact it's you doing the rule breaking, which, given your long history, you are surely aware that is what you're doing. Rockypedia (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The way it's presented is WP:UNDUE. The quote should be shortened to its essentials and incorporated into text, rather than presented as a block quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, every word of the quote is essential as it relates to American Renaissance's Ideology. I wouldn't disagree with incorporating it in the text, but I'd like to know why you think the other way is WP:UNDUE. Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The bit about TJ is trivial, looks both cherry picked and OR to call it ideology. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so trivial, IMHO, though I can do without it. It is their motto, so to speak. It balances, to some extent, the endless accusations of white supremacy, etc. Do you doubt that they mean it as an expression of their ideology? I don't. BTW, I am starting to have some concern that editors here are more interested in demeaning AmRen than they are in presenting an encyclopedic article about them. I see very little effort toward the latter. Lou Sander (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh here we go. Now it's accuse the editors time. Guess what, Lou - if a one-man website publishes a bunch of articles that advocate white supremacism, white nationalism, and racism, in varying degrees, and the man running the website advocates the same, and hosts conferences inviting other white supremacists to speak, then should he be surprised when CNN, the NYT, Slate, etc. describe him and his website as white supremacist? If you consider "white supremacist" a demeaning label, then maybe you should ask yourself why you're so hell-bent on removing that label from a white supremacist website.

No one here is interested in demeaning AmRen. Most of us are interested in the Wikipedia page about AmRen reflecting what reliable sources say about AmRen. And for the last time, what AmRen says about itself is not a reliable secondary source. Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, people label AmRen racist, and AmRen identifies as race-realist. So, according to sources and definitions, they'd qualify to being described as a "scientific racist magazine". Connor Machiavelli (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, that makes them sound as though they are scientific. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:POV though, that'd be WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. That is what we define race-realist as on Wikipedia. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New source

See[2]. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Good find! It is all excerpted from The Myth of Race, by Robert W. Sussman, described in fair depth HERE and HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Still more Southern Poverty Law Center

The second paragraph of the SPLC subsection is exclusively about Jared Taylor. It doesn't mention AmRen. Therefore IMHO it really doesn't belong here. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He's the founder and editor - it's basically his creation and baby. It would be relevant even if it didn't mention AmRen, but of course "an American Renaissance conference" is a mention. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, AmRen is basically a one-man operation, and that one man is Jared Taylor. Rockypedia (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm referring to the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, which doesn't mention AmRen at all, and therefore maybe doesn't fit an article about AmRen. You seem to be referring to the Post-Gazette article the subject paragraph uses as a reference. That reference is basically a highly critical opinion column about Taylor. Of course the P-G article mentions AmRen several times, but only in the context of to Taylor's association with it. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I don't think you are right about "one-man operation". If this article were about Taylor, BLP rules would apply, and that claim would have to be carefully justified. In fact, I think that the paragraph in question, if it remains, brings a bit of BLP into the article about AmRen. The bottom line is that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." IMHO, that includes talk pages such as this one. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying IMHO, which makes me wonder, when you don't say it, does that mean it's your dishonest opinion? Rockypedia (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, maybe strike that comment? I say IMHO at times. Yes, BLP applies everywhere, here and in the article. But I don't see any violations of BLP. Of course, if you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN. Taylor may not be the only person involved in AmRen but it is his creation and he is definitely its face, see this page from its website[http://www.amren.com/archives/interviews-appearances/] which doesn't mention anyone else. And how do you help AmRen? Get interviews for Taylor.[http://www.amren.com/about/activists/] Taylor and AmRen are inextricably linked - its his main way of promoting his views. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I agree 100% with your characterization of Taylor. I also agree 100% with your invitation to Rockypedia to strike his disparaging comments (both about me and about "one-man operation"). The latter is certainly not very egregious, but it isn't true, and it isn't referenced. It seems to represent one editor's not-so-well founded opinion about a living person. Like you, I am trying to improve this article. I am neutral / agnostic about AmRen's merits. I just think that a paragraph solely about Taylor, that is based on a takedown article about him, doesn't really belong in a section about SPLC's reception and controversy over AmRen. I hope that other editors can see where I'm coming from. Lou Sander (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact he does have an assistant, Henry Wolff. And then there's "AR Staff"[http://www.amren.com/author/arstaff/][http://www.amren.com/news/2015/05/prospects-for-black-america/] which is odd and suggests to me that must mean Taylor or Wolff. Your "takedown" is my "critical", and again I think a discussion of the founder, editor and main spokesman for AmRen is relevant. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope all of us would agree that there is a significant difference between a "one-man-show" and an outfit with more than one person, even if it's only two or three. It is analogous to the difference between a one man band and a duet or string trio. Also, I can certainly imagine that "AR Staff" might include people who don't want their names publicly revealed. Sort of like user names in the computer world.

I agree that a discussion of Jared Taylor is relevant in the AmRen article. My objection, which I hope I have clearly stated, but which doesn't seem to be getting across, is to including a single paragraph of such discussion under SPLC. Taylor has his own Wikipedia article, and as I understand things, it would be a common practice to excerpt it for a section in the AmRen article. Lou Sander (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Conferences

An editor has removed the citation pointing to the list of conferences on the AmRen website. That citation provides verifiability, and seems to be well within the strict limitations of WP:PRIMARY. To maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, I believe it should be restored. I agree with the removal of the additional material about availability of reprints and videos.

An editor also changed the dates and numbering of the conferences, (I believe incorrectly), without providing any sources. This might have come from reading the Cancellation of Conferences section without checking its references, which are flawed. From all appearances, the 2011 conference was not cancelled. The reference to its cancellation is a dead link. I'm guessing that it was an honest mistake to say that 2011 was cancelled; it is easy to confuse one year with another. Lou Sander (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

So, "described as a white supremacist publication by several sources, including The Washington Post, Fortune, and the Anti-Defamation League. It is published by the New Century Foundation, which describes itself as a "race-realist, white advocacy organization". It has also been described as "alt-right" by The Guardian." I suppose that means "is a white supremacist publication"? A handful of reliable sources seem to say it is. Or, if you somehow like this word salad, maybe we should rewrite this, "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only object in the Universe known to harbor life", realizing scientific consensus, the epistemological uncertainty of inductive reasoning, and the need to represent opinions from all sides? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Apropos deleting "Notable contributors and speakers"

@Grayfell - Looking at this article's history one can see that the sources given were considered reliable for more than the last five years.
It can of course not be expected that every appearance of a speaker is mentioned in the main stream media -- thus to indirectly claim that the previously given resources are not any longer reliable and demand others simply means the demand to not include information about conference speakers at all –- which you know of course -- and I'm sure that you do not really doubt that those mentioned actually spoke there, do you?
Why not just honestly give the reason that the one who deleted the information gave in the first place:
"... and we should not be using them as a source for all the Huge Big Stars!"
For years providing this information was deemed OK, and now it's considered propaganda? That's unworthy. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Things change, and people notice things that slipped through the cracks in the past. This information is not encyclopedically significant unless it's supported as such by a reliable source. In this case, that also means an independent source, since American Renaissance is not, and really never has been, a reliable source. It is barely usable for routine details about the publication itself, but these are not routine details.

"Unworthy"? Name-dropping without a reliable, independent source is promotional. That's outside of Wikipedia's scope. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been right there in the open for years -- and not "slipped through a crack". And it is without doubt a major difference whether a source is used for claims made concerning controversial topics by that very source or for simply providing information who attended a conference. And again -- I'm sure that when looking at the source you do not actually doubt that the speakers were there, do you? Do you actually believe it's all fake? Images, DVDs etc.? All made up? Of course not. That's just common sense and the information has not been hidden i.e. "slipped through". 93.224.109.244 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's fake, nor do I particularly care why it was originally added, but I do think that American Renaissance is unreliable for establishing due weight. Not every factoid that is verifiable belongs in an article, and Wikipedia is not a directory. American Renaissance has, obviously, a goal of promoting their publications and events, and name-dropping notable contributors is consistent with that goal. If this is truly encyclopedically significant, it should be possible to establish this through reliable, independent sources. The walled garden of academic white supremacists is quite small and intertwined, making this list neither remarkable, nor particularly informative by itself. Minor organizations and publishers, no matter the topic, do not automatically list every notable contributor without a specific reason. That reason must be established by reliable sources, not PR. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Summa summarum -- the truth of the fact that the speakers were there is not questioned, and the reader of the Wikipedia may learn that "American Renaissance" held conferences but not know the speakers anyway -- except for David Duke.
You say a reason MUST be established -- I don't think so -- and for the last five years it was obviously not considered a problem by others, too. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Don Black and David Duke are supported by multiple reliable sources. Sources were accepted, likely because they were ignored, and now they are not being ignored. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

More likely it was not considered obligatory to establish a reason for stating an accepted truth. 93.224.109.244 (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Edit warring?! For re-adding information that has been included in the article for years and deleted without discussion in the first place. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.109.244 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The content was removed by one editor, you restored it, and it was removed again by a second editor, and you restored it again. We are having a discussion about it, so let's finish the discussion.

Not all accepted truths about American Renaissance belong in the article about American Renaissance. The way we establish due weight is with reliable, independent sources. This is standard for all articles about organizations and businesses. As an imperfect example, few other articles about magazines established in 1990 list contributors in this way. For those that do, we could discuss that on their talk pages if we felt it was inappropriate, and we could discuss that at any time, regardless of how long the list had been there. Many of those article are pretty bad, and include a lot of puffery and promotional filler, and I bet a lot of it has been there for years. This isn't a justification for adding that kind of thing here, of course. Likewise, content is not grandfathered-in, nor are Wikipedia editors obligated to honor precedent without looking at the bigger picture. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Greyfell is absolutely correct. Material in any article that fails our policies and guidelines may be removed no matter how long it's been there and should not be restored. Doug Weller talk 07:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)