Talk:Jared Taylor

Corrections to Taylor entry

ON GENETIC INTERESTS

This portion belongs in Works and Views, not in the introduction. As written, it gave a slanted impression. The changes put Taylor’s comments in context.

Old version:

In January 2005, Taylor in reviewing a book by Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, agreed with Salter that an Englishman would be better off resisting the immigration of two hypothetical Bantu immigrants, than he would be to rescue one of his own children from drowning.

New version:

In January 2005, in reviewing a book by Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, Taylor agreed with Salter that from a genetic point of view an Englishman would be better off resisting the immigration of two hypothetical Bantu immigrants, than he would be to rescue one of his own children from drowning. Taylor also noted this was an “extreme” conclusion.

WHITE SEPARATIST

The source cited calls Taylor a “self-described” white separatist, but gives no source. An exhaustive search of Taylor’s writing does not turn up a single occasion in which Taylor calls himself a white separatist. This term should be removed.

HOLOCAUST DENIAL

The section is completely inappropriate. Taylor has written millions of words about race and immigration, whereas this entire section is based on a single, ambiguous sentence he wrote in reply to what he apparently thought was a private correspondent.

~~The single comment he made in a "private moment" nevertheless was revealing. It should have stayed here. Adolf Hitler said many revealing things about his intentions in private moments. Derek Jeter must have said great things about baseball in private moments and baseball is his job. It's now beyond argument that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. For Jared to waffle as he did was an attempt to please his main audience, the rabid anti-Semites of his racist, anti-Semitic and genocide-obsessed website amren.com, while not unduly angering everybody else. Jared Taylor and his followers are extremely dangerous people. In forums they control they practice the totalitarian control of information and opinions and he is present on Wikipedia and YouTube and other places because he is trying to pull off a breakout from the marginal regions where he rules the roost and trying to reach a mainstream audience. Based on that, why were various comments I posted here removed? I cannot find any of them. If Wikipedia cannot defend its own territory its mission has failed and it has become just another medium Jared can manipulate. Also, I believe the bit in the main article about how Jared was a liberal until he was 30 should be taken with a grain of salt until it’s verified. A man with the hardened attitudes he evinces must have harbored them since early childhood and most likely grew up with adults who harbored them. Edruezzi00:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edruezzi (talk • contribs)

Views on Interracial Relationships

Wikipedia guidelines state: “Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.” There are no sources for Taylor’s alleged affiair with a Japanese woman, and rumors have no place in an encyclopedia. In an earlier discussion page, Taylor himself flatly denied the rumor and challenged anyone to produce evidence. None was forthcoming.

Furthermore, the Taylor article quoted later actually refers to the high level of attractiveness of both men and women. To leave out the men gives a false impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuppertwo (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources which say that Taylor either is or calls himself a white separatist. These two are probably the best I found in a few minutes of searching: [1][2]   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't realized that the version I had reverted to yesterday and on March 29 had the Akisada rumor still in it. As you can see in my edit summary on March 29, I agree with you that it is much too spurious to be mentioned here. As for the rest of the things, I will look at them all more clearly when I have some more free time. See here for a bit of background info on the Holocaust denial dispute. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Those quotes are not "deceptive"

Calling them such, with no explanation, removing them from the article, then reverting a re-addition with no edit comment is more or less vandalism. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are manifestly deceptive. No honest person can read the footnoted article and conclude otherwise. To wit, he is claimed to comment on the attractiveness of Japanese with two quotes:

• Saying they have "a high average level of attractiveness". However, he clearly attributes this opinion (and only in reference to women) to "many Westerners", not himself. It is the worst kind of quoting out of context when someone says, "X says/claims/thinks/believes Y", and quote them as saying "Y".

• The "waddling colossi" comment. This is in a paragraph having nothing to do with attractiveness, but the homogeneity of the Japanese population, with the example that even fat Japanese are not all that fat.

Blatant misrepresentation is particularly egregious in the case of a WP:BLP.

Moreover, his article has almost nothing to do with beauty, so whatever comments about it he does make can not be considered a significant opinion of his. His "works and views" should emphasize his main, important beliefs, not side examples in service of a broader point.

Also, this user reverted my merging of the "Views on interracial relationships" into the "Works on views" section. No explanation was provided why this one view needs its own section separated from the rest of his views.

I'm reverting, of course. Tyuia (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"But there is a different and more pleasant homogeneity that goes beyond racial traits" comes right before the "waddling collosi" sentence. This seems to me to obviously be about attractiveness. What does "pleasant" mean to you in that context?

The "high level" comment, in context, seems to me to indicate that he counts himself among the many who think so. In the interest of being careful, I agree it should be left out of this article.

One of his "important beliefs" is that Asians are superior to Caucasians. Beauty is certainly an aspect of that belief.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning on this talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What "pleasant" means is a matter of interpretation-- in a BLP it's especially important to not go beyond what the sources actually say. (He could, e.g., mean it's the homogeneity itself that is plesant.) I'm also pretty sure Taylor does not regard Asians as superior to Caucasians.

The "high level" comment goes in hand with his comment that Japanese don't reach the level of beauty of "models" and "stars". His broad point is about homogeneity and unexceptionalism, and attractiveness is just one example. I still don't see why this minor sub-sub-point deserves a paragraph in his "Works and views", given the considerable body of writings Taylor has authored.

As phrased, it also gives the false impression that "waddling colossi" are the American norm, when he's merely stating that the fattest Americans exceed (so to speak) the fattest Japanese.

However, I'll leave it alone for now, in case anyone else wants to chime in. Tyuia (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of 8/15 changes to Taylor article

There are four areas I've addressed:

1. Paved With Good Intentions

Taylor’s book is about blacks, not multiculturalism, and what I have provided is the central thesis of the book.

2. Donahue Interview

In the Donahue interview, Taylor does not say anything that could be characterized as claiming that “Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.”

What I have inserted reflects Taylor’s actual words from the Donahue interview: “The Mexican officials themselves are proud of the fact that, as they say, street by street, town by town, Mexico is taking back the Southwestern part of the United States.” I have also fixed the link in note 6 so it leads to a transcript of the actual interview.

3. European Immigration Policies

The former version is mind-reading: “Taylor has often expressed great personal distaste over the growing presence of non-whites in European and European-derived countries.” Perhaps Taylor does have “great personal distaste” for non-whites in Europe, but the quotation from him that follows does not prove it. This article should let readers draw their own conclusions from Taylor’s own words; therefore the setup to the quote should be neutral.

4. Appearance of the Japanese

The two sentences I have deleted are incoherent. On the subject of physical attractiveness, Taylor has written only this: “Physical beauty is subjective, but many Westerners think that even if Japanese women never achieve the breath-taking beauty of European models or movie stars, they have a high average level of attractiveness. Staying slim and dressing stylishly have a lot to do with it.”

Taylor does not attribute their attractiveness to immigration policy, and “attention to detail” is a clumsy rewording of “staying slim and dressing stylishly.” Given the nature of Taylor’s work and interests, his views on the attractiveness of Japanese is extremely unimportant, but if something about them is to be included at all, the passage should reflect something he actually wrote.

The “slouching kind of contempt” phrase is in the specific context of uniformed personnel. Perhaps Taylor thinks blacks and Hispanics in general have a “slouching kind of contempt” for their jobs, but he does not say that here. Therefore this section should be left entirely out, or the fuller passage should be quoted so the reader can draw his own conclusions.

TuppertwoTuppertwo (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the section about the Japanese people back. Attractiveness and immigration policy are tied by the beginning of that section: "Behind all this efficiency, of course, is the Japanese people, who by keeping out alien populations, have maintained complete control over their society. To the Western eye, they are physically homogeneous . . . "

The reasons for his separatist views are partially aesthetic. I think this is relevant. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If Taylor has “separatist views” why would he call the Japanese attractive? I repeat, his views of the Japanese are an unimportant part of his body of work, but if included, should be quotations rather than inaccurate paraphrasing.

Furthermore, regarding the "white separatist" label in the opening: First, the quotation from Taylor is not in the Donahue interview. It is here:

http://www.amren.com/news/news04/02/27/jtconf2004talk.html

Second, it is deeply misleading to call Taylor a “white separatist” on the basis of this passage. Taylor specifically denies being a “separatist” in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENXFxETlGQ

In the following article he also rejects the label of “separatist” and argues for complete freedom of association.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/06/

The following statements also emphasize freedom of association, which is not commonly assumed to be the same as “white separatism,” which implies forcible exclusion.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/smu_cancels_deb.php

http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/01/

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/07/a_reply_to_taki.php

If someone thinks the passage about being “left alone” is important, quote it as one of Taylor’s views and let the reader make up his own mind.

Finally, regarding Katrina: The setup here to the quotation about the “capacity of blacks” is mind-reading, so I have made it neutral.

TuppertwoTuppertwo (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Fastilysock - Apropos my changes and question

There used to be a picture. So it's a legitimate question to ask why it was removed. Why do you insult me? Why do you call me a vandal? Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV – and my honest and open opinion is that many of Nosliwnad's changes made the article worse. Why was the infobox removed? Instead of insulting me and threatening to censor further contributions you should be open-minded and open for discussion. 217.236.201.18 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

There used to be a picture of Jared Taylor. Why was is removed? 217.236.201.18 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation of 2010 American Renaissance conference

It's good that an entry was created for this, since this was a noteworthy event, but I notice that while painstaking efforts were made to document Don Black's history, and to call his website "neo-Nazi" (is this an attempt at guilt by association?) Jared Taylor simply appeared as a guest on this program. This does not imply that he endorses Don Black's opinions or background. At the same time that such diligent attempts to document Don Black's background were made, the instigator of the conference cancellation was completely left out of the entry. Surely if Don Black's background is so important, the individual who orchestrated the conference shutdown, as well as his connection to the United States government, should not be left out of the story. In addition, the entry said that Taylor called the incident "vicious." Which is not true. I just listened to the interview and I could find no use of the word "vicious" by Taylor. Therefore, I have inserted an actual quote of Taylor's from the interview into the entry. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

164.111.225.154 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He is a racist. An admitted one. His opinion that race is biological is his opinion, not fact. Just like any racist. Tribal does not equate to race, and the fact he chose to make youtube videos about differences of the "races" is the same opinion as "Black's". There were tribes of some "race" for millenia. To state that race=tribalism is false, scientifically. Race is a social concept, "blacks" are not a subspecies of "whites". Youtube sent me here, by listening to his bullcrap. He's a white supremacist. My opinion, yes, but race is not a separate species as has been proven by science, biological. Ethnicity is not a subspecies, yet ethnicity, diet, and geography can contribute to differences in biological differences, but does not make humans separate species. RupJana (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

2/23 Edits

This latest iteration of the Taylor entry still contains irrelevant and erroneous information which seems intended to leave the reader with the impression that Taylor is an anti-Semite, a charge which the ADL ( “...Taylor himself personally refrains from anti-Semitism.” http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/jared_taylor/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=taylor and the and SPLC (“One thing that separates Taylor from much of the radical right, however, is his lack of anti-Semitism”)http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jared-taylor both dispute.

Taylor's primary focus is race, and it is through his writings on racial issues that he has become a public figure. The article about Israel is irrelevant to his larger body of work. The section on the Holocaust is built upon a single sentence Taylor appears to have written in a private email. It too is irrelevant. Ian Jobling appears to be a disgruntled former employee of Taylor, so unless he is identified as such, his opinions shouldn't feature so prominently in an entry about Taylor. Appearing together in the same entry, Israel, the Holocaust, and charges of condoning anti-Semitism, are something a reader would expect to see about someone who is anti-Jewish; Taylor is not, so the mention of them in his entry is misleading. It is unfair to Taylor and the reader, and should be removed.

Finally, the Color of Crime monograph contains no mention of authorship. It is not listed among Ian Jobling's publications, so listing him as a co-author seems to be original research and should be removed.Tuppertwo (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront Radio and AR Conference

There are problems with the inclusion of the Stormfront radio appearance and the section regarding the AR conference. The bit about the AR conference appears on the AR Wikipedia entry, which would seem the proper place for it. It's inclusion here, on Taylor's entry, is irrelevant. The inclusion of the Stormfront radio appearance is further evidence that this entry is being used to peg Taylor as an anti-Semite. The paragraph as written is also inaccurate and misleading. The radio program is not hosted by former KKK leader Don Black, but rather by Derek Black, as the included link makes clear. Also, according to the AR webpage, Taylor discussed the conference cancellation on a New Orleans radio station http://www.amren.com/interviews/2010/0219jeff-crouere/index.html. This entry makes it look like he spoke only to Stormfront. Apparently Taylor contacted the media: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/02/how_liberty_die.php but nobody else was interested. Without corrections, and without including some additional information, the purpose of these revisions seems to be to imply or support the charge that Taylor is an anti-Semite, something even his "official" enemies don't claim. See above.

Taylor may be a racist and have some problematic associations, but he isn't an anti-Semite. Wikipedia should not be allowing people to use his entry to claim that he is.Tuppertwo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAJsmQp01c — Preceding unsigned comment added by RupJana (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

7/28 Edits

Substituted "race realist" for "racialist" and "white nationalist." Based on recent interviews, this seems to be a more accurate description of Taylor's views. Removed reference to Prof. Robert Weissberg. This is irrelevant. Pointing out Weissberg's religion smacks of "some of my best friends are..."Tuppertwo (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be that he also or now describes himself that way, but if so we should add the new terms but not delete the old ones. "In 2005 he said X. In 2010 he said Y." As a biography, this should tell the story ofhis life, not just the current version.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, provided there is direct documentation of "In 2005 he said X." Unfortunately, the sources cited do not offer evidence of Taylor saying, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist." In the recent Examiner interview, Taylor is asked, "Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?" and responds, "No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire." The note/link attached to "racialist" in the text refers to an article from FAIR in which Taylor is the "self-described 'racialist' and 'white separatist' editor of The American Renaissance . . ." but this article provides no evidence of Taylor describing himself that way. Also, in the Vdare piece, the "citizenism" debate between Sailer and Taylor, while Sailer describes Taylor as a "white nationalist," Taylor acknowledges defending white nationalism without declaring, "I am a white nationalist." If I defend France from accusations of colonial imperialism, that doesn't make me a Frenchman or an imperialist. If a source quotes Taylor saying directly, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist," provide a link and by all means use it. Otherwise I think you'd have to say, "Taylor describes himself as a 'race realist' while others describe him as a 'racialist' or 'white nationalist.'"Tuppertwo (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That proposal sounds logical. Go ahead.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• and he said that "I could be described as a 'white nationalist'" in 2005.

It's disgusting and disgraceful of you to whitewash a matter of solid, objective fact that he said what he did. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading your source, and taking what you purport to be a quote out of context. Here is the full sentence: "Discussing the futility of uplift programs that ignore the realities of race and IQ, Mr. Sailer mentioned my foundation’s recent report, The Color of Crime and predicted that the Mainstream Media would ignore it both because the contents are true and because I could be described as a 'white nationalist.'" [Source: http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050929_citizenism.htm] The solid, objective fact is that Sailer has characterized Taylor as a "white nationalist," not that Taylor is describing himself that way. If you read the original piece by Sailer, you'll find that this is what he wrote: "I'm sure the statistics Taylor reports will be dismissed simply because it will be easy to criticize Taylor's principles. He and his journal, American Renaissance, espouse a white nationalist viewpoint." [Source: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050918_crime.htm]. Taylor, in his response, merely acknowledges that Sailer considers him a white nationalist, which is not the same thing as Taylor acknowledging that he is a white nationalist. Once again, in order to be fair and objective, without a source documenting that Taylor says, "I am a white nationalist," one would have to say, "Others describe him as a white nationalist."Tuppertwo (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. I notice that you have also whitewashed all of these nasty hateful things said Taylor said about non-Europeans from this article while refusing to defend that edit. Instead, you did two edits at the same time for two different blocks of text to obscure yourself. But you didn't could on the eagle eyes of other Wikipedia editors.

• 1)With respect to your whitewashing of anti-nonwhite material said by Taylor, you have given no justification. So revert that edit immediately.
• 2)As for the other issue, the 'white nationalist' term, you are dodging the question and not responding to fact. He wrote: "I could be described as a 'white nationalist.'". He did not write that he is one, which is what you are falsely claiming that I am trying to put into the article. He merely said that he could be described as one-- that is, by other people.

You errenously claim=

in order to be fair and objective, without a source documenting that Taylor says, "I am a white nationalist," one would have to say, "Others describe him as a white nationalist."

But this is what the article already says. Your handwaving is pathetic. The article says that Taylor has said that others can call him a 'white nationalist'. That is what is in this article.

I can see from your editing history that you never edit Wikipedia except on this page. And you have a pattern of making Taylor look nicer and nicer with your edits. This won't do. Wikipedia is not meant for single-purpose people with an agenda like you. Please stop this foolishness at once! 129.120.176.206 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through the editing guidelines again. Pay particular attention to what’s listed in the box at the top of this page, regarding politeness, the assumption of good faith, the avoidance of personal attacks, neutrality of POV, and attempting to use these pages for “general discussion of the article’s subject.” I’m not trying to “whitewash” Taylor. I’m trying to ensure that Taylor’s views are presented accurately and objectively. Taylor is controversial because he publicly challenges the status quo on a number of culturally and politically sensitive issues. You and many others who edit this page are trying to selectively use material about Taylor to guide readers into making certain conclusions about him. Hence your selective editing of the Vdare piece. You believe Taylor is “nasty” “hateful” and “anti-nonwhite,” and go to pains to ensure that Wikipedia readers will reach similar conclusions. This is “outcomes-based editing” otherwise known as partisanship, otherwise known as bias. Which is why you label my efforts to make this entry conform to standards of neutrality as a “pattern” of making it “nicer and nicer.” This makes *your* agenda pretty clear. But, then again, this isn’t about you, or me. It’s supposed to be about Jared Taylor, isn’t it?Tuppertwo (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Added "by others" to make the point clearer. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are *not* making points clearer, you are engaging in further distortion and intellectual dishonesty. Your edit reads: He has written that "non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments— not those of whites— and whites will not like that society" since "blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which "citizens" must pay" (emphasises in the original). You are linking two separate paragraphs from the Vdare piece out of order and out of context. Taking the latter first: Taylor writes, in the full paragraph, "Let us assume that Mr. Sailer has his way, and the facts about race and IQ become widely accepted. Whites now fully understand that blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which "citizens" must pay." The second paragraph, which is seven paragraphs down from the first, reads in full: "I think Mr. Sailer would agree that it is because non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments—not those of whites—and whites will not like that society." Taylor is talking making two distinct points in these paragraphs. They cannot honestly be linked the way you've done it, by selectively editing them, reverting the order, and tying them together with "since"--implying that the one concludes from the other. That's *your* interpretation, not Taylor's. Readers can go to the Vdare piece [3] and see for themselves what Taylor wrote. They don't need you to draw conclusions for them.

And by the way, the plural of "emphasis" is "emphases" not "emphasises."Tuppertwo (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He's a racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAJsmQp01c RupJana (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC) My opinion, his words.

I don't know why a past quote by him is so relevant. It certainly doesn't belong in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Text changed to=

"He has written that "non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments— not those of whites— and whites will not like that society", and he has also written that "blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which citizens must pay" (emphasises in the original).

It's now correctly stated in the sentence that these are two seperate, unlinked quotes. I also removed the "white nationalist" terminology. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tuppertwo, I'm curious, and this is a genuine question: Why is it that you have never edited a Wikipedia article besides this one? This is your only article. There are millions of Wikipedia articles out there, and this is the only one that you've ever touched. Why?

This is a honest, civil, and reasonable question to which I expect an honest, civil, and reasonable answer. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this right, per WP:BLP, rather than edit-war over it. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has two references named "white"

I didn't realize that such a mistake was possible to make without the engine giving an error. Can someone go through the article and figure out which references are which and separate the two? --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave a shot at trying to figure it out, with no luck. Maybe I just got confused trying to figure what reference goes with what citation, but it looks like neither of these references actually verify the material in the article. I've tagged the article for cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Both interviews are the same, one was just a reprint of the other. I've removed the duplicate. However, I couldn't verify the quotes, only the "racial realist" claim. I'm guessing someone was quoting a different interview. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (I think) 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the source. Because the quotes come from a statement by Taylor covered by no independent sources, I think it's best to keep them out. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I give up

I hereby wash my hands of this page; there's no point when it's so full of blantant trolling. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• he is my hero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.193.170 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo versus Volunteer Marek

Re [4]. I'm sorry but just because "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that is or can serve as a forum for propagation of racist ideas. Usually the defense that some kind of junk should be included in an article because "Wikipedia is not censored" is a pretty good sign that the junk being pushed for inclusion is in fact junk.

Some specific examples in this particular context:

• The text explanations for the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly black people, in Western countries - has obvious racist overtones. You know those problematic non-whites, particularly black people. Come on. This just needs to be removed.
• The text beginning with On the greater number of non-whites... is source to the (racist) American Renaissance magazine, which in this case is a self-published source. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. See WP:RS. It's fine to include AR to source info on how the journal describes itself - and I've left those instances in the article - but it is not fine to try and present commentary from the magazine as fact.
• The text beginning with In January 2005, Taylor reviewed a book by Frank Salter, ... - ditto. Unless this review has been discussed in other, independent sources, there's no reason for it being here.
• The text beginning with Conservative writer and activist David Horowitz makes it clear that he disagrees with Taylor's philosophy, which he calls a "surrender to a multicultural miasma"... - 1) this is a dead link, and cannot be verified. 2) I'm not really sure if Horowitz's or FP's opinion is all that important here.
• The text beginning with Paul Gottfried, professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College, also disagrees with what he calls "the value of white nationalism," but writes: "I... - again, sourced to AmRen. Need an independent outside source.
• The text beginning with Taylor's fellow VDARE.com writer Steve Sailer, .... Who cares what Sailer thinks? He is not a reliable source, and we certainly shouldn't be providing a platform for these kinds of view by giving him a large block quote.
• The text beginning with Noted author and columnist Jim Goad has written in a review of Taylor's White Identity... - while there may have been a time when Goad was actually funny (and maybe even insightful) we probably want to include opinions of mainstream writers here.

Don't use "Wikipedia is not censored" as an excuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In return, don't use WP:RS as a cover for your severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your shoddy editing and gutting of sourced material has left the article in worse shape than before you chopped out what you believe to be inappropriate. Did you even read the article aloud after you chopped it? Some places don't even make full sentences anymore. That is why I accuse (present tense) you of censorship-in your haste you are sloppy.

For the record, the sources are not the best, and individually, case-by-case this can be weeded properly. I say properly because your language and tone suggest you are not impartial here. This article was a hatchet piece before-the articles on Nixon and Stalin are much more able to look at both angles. The editor who tried to add in balance was at least working in good faith-are you? At any rate I have requested 3O as I do not believe there is impartiality to be found in an editor who starts a talkpage header calling out another's username. Let's get someone else to have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jared Taylor and have no particular involvement with the editors in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Disclaimer: I have had some previous interaction with Kintetsubuffalo at Talk:TPR Storytelling, but I believe this is minor and that it won't bias my opinions here. Hmm, this is a tricky one. Contentious subject; two well-established editors. This looks like it will need careful treatment. However, the first thing I notice is that for a dispute, it hasn't been, well... disputed very much. All I see are the two comments here and a few edit summaries, which doesn't really make a discussion. At the moment, if I gave an opinion on the content of the dispute in any detail, then it would basically just become a dialogue between me and Volunteer Marek. Kintetsubuffalo, could you comment on the specific things that you aren't agreeing with? If necessary, I will act as a neutral party to make sure we keep the discussion focused on content and not on each other.—— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick note/response to Kintetsbuffalo (I actually didn't see that this went to 3O but I'm glad it did) - Some places don't even make full sentences anymore. - if you can point out any such places then I will be happy to fix it. This however is basically a style issue, not a content issue - grammar, spelling, style can and should be fixed. But fixing grammar, spelling, and style should not be used as a cover for introducing unreliable material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And if we're gonna do this on case by case basis, then I'm glad you agree that "sources are not the best" - so, are you fine with AT LEAST removing the statements/links to American Renaissance? That really should have no place in a serious encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think enough time has passed that it looks like we might not hear from Kintetsubuffalo about this. (I did leave a message on his talk page about it, so he should know there has been a 3O response.) I do have a few thoughts on the situation; I think I'll start a new section below, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Taylor is somewhat unique among American white nationalists for his opposition to anti-semitism."

Looks like we've been over the white nationalist thing before, and the current policy is that he shouldn't be described as one. I was going to replace "white nationalist" with "race realist" there, but then the sentence wouldn't make sense, since antisemitism isn't all that common among race realists who don't describe themselves as white nationalists/supremacists/etc. So what should be done about that? --Nortaneous (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what current policy are you referring to? We go with what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going by what the 7/28 Edits section says: there's no reliable source where he labels himself a white nationalist, so he shouldn't be called one. The problem, though, is that I don't know how to fix that paragraph while retaining the meaning. I'd apply WP:BLP and wipe the whole paragraph, but the information in there is useful enough that I'd rather wait until a way can be found to leave it in while removing the "white nationalist" label. --Nortaneous (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the 7/28 Edits section? Anyway - it doesn't matter whether or not he himself labels himself as a white nationalist. What matters if reliable sources label him as such. Because this is a BLP, these sources have to be really reliable - but in this case, I think they are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The 7/28 Edits section seems to be the one on this talk page above. No opinions on the content for now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What reliable sources are there? Most of the references referring to him as anything along the lines of "white nationalist" are not all that reliable; in fact, some of them (MediaMouse, Common Dreams) openly describe themselves as left-wing, and I'm not exactly sure that it's a good idea to call such sources reliable in the context of an article on a prominent right-winger. Is there at least a way to replace that sentence with an equivalent quote? --Nortaneous (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The factthat he has agreed to be interviewed for a book called "contemporary voices of White Nationalism" (published At Cambridge University Press) suggests that he does not find that label very problematic. And in anycase it is a sourceable view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Several peer reviwed sources call him a "white separatist" (hardly more flattering?) (Any Way You Slice It: Why Racial Profiling Is Wrong RT Shuford - . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev., 1999; Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA.

S Weisenburger - Review of The Journal of Southern History, 2005; Realignment: The Theory That Changed the Way We Think about American Politics JH Silbey - The Journal of Southern History, 2005; Guns, Drugs, and Profiling: Ways to Target Guns and Minimize Racial Profiling JH Skolnick… - Ariz. L. Rev., 2001 (which also calls him "openly racist") ) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources out there which refer to him as a White Nationalist. I don't know if they "left-wing" or not, but they are certainly reliable and mainstream. For example section title, "and the particular brand of white nationalism he pursued", [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I've purposely left out sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which while reliable I guess could be called "left wing".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Given this large number of sources I just listed, can we put into the lede that he is considered a "white nationalist"? Probably should clarify what AR is as well. The main reason why Taylor is notable is PRECISELY because he is a white nationalist who publishes a racist magazine. It is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to mislead our readers by hiding these facts from them and whitewashing this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)at I

Large number of sources, many of which are less notable than Jim Goad and not even related to the subject at hand? (I wouldn't call a book about neoliberalism in Latin America a reliable source on the American far right!) Taylor is notable because he publishes AR and is a fairly well-known writer in a certain bit of the ideological spectrum, and this is true whether or not he is a white nationalist. It must be reported that he is widely considered a white nationalist, but whether he in fact *is* a white nationalist is debated, and therefore, as per WP:BLP, it can't be reported as fact. --Nortaneous (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Balance in the lead

I think the neutrality of the lead is a problem. At the moment we have a sentence that says "Taylor's views have generally been described as racist by academics, political commentators, journalists, and various other organizations." This is not in itself a problem if it is well sourced, although I think the quality of the sourcing does not support such a bold statement at the moment. More importantly, there are no views presented of any contrary opinions, which is a must for satisfying WP:NPOV. I have not researched this, but such views must exist, even if the only contrary view is Taylor's himself. Is anyone aware of other views that we may include? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV - it is not at all necessary to present views to the contrary, if those views only come from fringe sources (and Taylor himself would probably qualify as such, though I guess there's some point in letting him self-describe here). In particular this section of the NPOV policy makes that clear: Giving equal validity. This whole "on the one hand, on the other hand" does not ensure NPOV - in fact it CAN be POV itself - on topics such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Marek is right. NPOV does not require an opposing view to be included for every partial view given, it only requires notable opposing views to be given space according to their relative prominence in reliable sources. The article does devote a large amount to Taylors own views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I wasn't suggesting that we include every fringe view in the lead, just notable views according to their prominence in reliable sources, as you say. It just seems odd to me that the only notable viewpoint present in the sources is that he is racist. Surely he must have refuted these allegations somewhere? That would seem to be notable enough to me. Also, in the version Kintetsubuffalo preferred we have a whole section on "praise", and though much of it is double-edged, none of it seems to have found its way to the lead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead clarly states his own view on the racism allegations - it even gives his own view before the accusationof racism is mentioned - he considers himself to be a "race realist" (which a majority view would indeed classify as a euphemism for racist)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In this source (The Crisis in New Orleans: Viewed by a Biological Racist J Taylor - The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2005 - The JBHE Foundation) he even uses the word "racist" about himself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a little look for sources, and found this from Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America. From the book: "Taylor himself strenuously rejects the racist label and claims that his views on race and nationality are moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America's past." This seems to fit the criteria of inclusion to me. I want to stress that neither I, nor Swain, the author of the book, are trying to defend Taylor's views. Rather, I think we should present the readers with all the relevant facts and let them decide for themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit more background reading on this now, and I see that the "praise" section was a lot more questionable than I initially thought. We can definitely do better than sourcing praise about him to websites like VDARE without qualifying their nature. For now, I think I'll just add in Taylor's personal refutation of the racism accusations, and we can work from there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the sentence about race was removed by Volunteer Marek anyway. Hmm, that's probably for the best. Really we should have more reliable sources in the body before dealing with the lead anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I see this was done by Dezidor, not Marek, and that it was put into the "views" section, not removed. I also think that this is better than having it in the lead though - good move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Praise" section

This has been re-added by Dezidor, but we should really talk about this before edit-warring over it. Dezidor, do you have any arguments against Volunteer Marek's points here? I agree with him that we can't source things to American Renaissance, and I also think we should be very careful with our wording when sourcing praise about him by people like Steve Sailer. I'm afraid you need to contribute to the discussion if you want to keep this material in. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What Volunteer Marek wrote are not arguments but personal feelings and comments like Who cares what Sailer thinks? There is no reason to think that what Sailer and VDARE think is less or more important than what Potok and SPLC think. There is no reason to think the sources that he calls "racist" are less or more reliable than sources that are "anti-racist". --Dezidor (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a ton of difference between Potok and SPLC on one hand, and Sailer and VDARE on the other. For starters, the first are reliable sources, the second are not. Sailer and VDARE violate WP:FRINGE. Presenting their opinions in this article is simply WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing political advocacy groups like SPLC are not more reliable than anti-immigration VDARE or another notable conservative sources.They just share different political views. Some people just like left wing politics and some right wing identity politics. Endlessly repeating charges of racism are not a form of debate, but they are ment to silence debate and exclude staments and sources that some people do not politically like. Your claim that Sailer is "fringe" is your unsourced personal feeling. I read that he wrote for The American Conservative, National Review, VDARE.com and Sailer's work frequently appears at Taki's Magazine[12] and Alternative Right,[13] while Sailer's analyses have been cited by newspapers such as The Washington Times,[14] The New York Times,[15] the San Francisco Chronicle and The Times of London. He looks like notable non-fringe right-wing voice. --Dezidor (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the "criticism" and "praise" sections into one "reception" section. This should stop this discussion from becoming an all-or-nothing "praise" or "no praise". We can go through each of the paragraphs on their merits. I'm open to changing the section title, as it should be about reception of Taylor's views rather than reception of him as a person. (I did think of "reception of Taylor's views", but that seemed a little too long.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one section is better, there are also opinion "between" decidedly negative and positive. It should be both about reception of Taylor's views and reception of him as a person. This is biography. --Dezidor (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the section title, and I'm fine with including "positive" reviews as long as they're from reliable, non-fringe sources. I'd put Derbyshire in as a non-fringe source - though probably not as non-fringe as the SPLC on the other side of the issue. So I've left him. Horowitz may also fit the bill, but we simply cannot use anything cited to American Renaissance. If you can find statements from Horowitz about Taylor in a mainstream source then that could be included. Lastly, Jim Goad is simply not notable - and also fringe, albeit in a different way - enough to include here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for the efficacy of third opinions

Alright, this is starting to piss me off. I got reverted yet again, without explanation and this time the user in question User:Dezidor even had the nerve to call my edits "vandalism". To make it plain clear:

1. Text sourced to racist magazines has no place in Wikipedia. Do not restore this text or links to these sources.

2. If you're gonna revert people, have the common courtesy to:

a. Read the talk page first

b. Discuss your edits on the talk page

c. Consult the third opinion as given

3. NPOV requires that we use notable reliable sources. We shouldn't use other extremists (like Sailer) or little known writers (like Goad). I've already said this, there has been no response.

4. Don't restore text into the lede which reads like textbook racism by presuming that "there are problems associated with Black people". I mean what the fuck? What is this, WikiStormfrontpedia?

I'm sorry but I am going to revert this, again, and I strongly suggest that people start using the talk page. Also don't label other people's edits as vandalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I have made some changes to the lead which I think adequately reflects what most of the reliable sources that describe Taylor's person, views and work agree on. They all agree that he is more moderate than many US white nationalists, and a centralizing figure in that environment arond which white nationalists and supremacists of different persuasions can gather, several sources describe him as central figure in lending legitimacy to the extreme views. Most sources also explicitly mention him in relation to racism either saying that he is not a racist or that he is (the fact that this is an issue also among his supporters means that the accusations are notable and hav to be included in the article and the lead - relative to the prominence of them in sources (which is high)). Sources also frequently mention his public advocacy for racial profiling. I have added all this to the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the new wording; it is much clearer and more diplomatic than what we had before. I have also added a short sentence about him refuting accusations of racism, as I talked about above. Let me know if you think it is reasonable. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm having second thoughts about the word "accusation" in that sentence, so let me know if you think there is a better way of phrasing it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the page number in Swain and Nieli for him being a "moderate"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I was also curious about this too. I think the material on page 87 agrees with the general characterization of him and his beliefs that is written in the lead, but I don't see anything specific there about him being on the moderate side of white nationalism. Maunus? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Swain and Nieli group the people the white nationalists interview into three groups by arranged the degree of racial extremism in their views: "White Rights Advocacy", " White Nationalism/White Separatism" and "White Supremacy/Neo-Nazism". They locate Taylor in the first group. They give this reasoning for that: "the interviewees see themselves as defenders of the legitimate civil rights of white people against what they allege are a host of racial double standards that work to the detriment of whites. Each of the three interviewees in this section deplores current affirmative action policy and what they contend is a general practice on the part of the mainstream news media of gross underreporting of black-on-white crime. Taylor and Levin also believe, like most of the other interviewees in this volume, that there are significant genetic differences between blacks and whites, and that these differences are largely responsible for the higher black crime rate and the poorer performance of blacks in academia. demic settings. The policy prescriptions of the people in this grouping tend toward moderation, however. None of the three people interviewed in this first section, for instance, openly support the creation of a racially separate state or believe that the basic structure of the American political regime should be radically altered because of current racial divisions." So this places Taylor within the most moderate group within the larger group of "White nationalism". There is a slight contradiction in the fact that Swain and Nieli refer to all of the interviewees as representatives of white nationalism, but also call one of the separatist group nationalist. I think this has to do with the fact that they are basically about the degree to which the interviewees believe racial groups should be separate nations - either through simply "sticking up for ones own group", through separate governments, or by eradicating certain groups. Another reason I think it is fair to call Taylor a moderate is because he is noted in some sources for being a "Teflon racist", the kind who balances on the edge where it is difficult to pin him down on actual "hate speech".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That looks like a good basis for the citation, and in my Google Books preview that starts on page viii. Unfortunately the next page is cut off, and I can't see it, so I can't verify things either way. I see my local university library has a copy, so I can check it up the next time I'm there. (I have no idea when that will be, though...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources:

When a wikipedia editor says "So and so's book says so and so", it is ludicrous to ask for an authoritative source to tell us what the book says. If we cannot read the book ourselves, we cannot read the authoritative source ourselves, and would need second authoritative source to tell us what the first authoritative source says the book says, and yet a third authoritative source ...

Further, the demand for authoritative sources to decide what X said usually happens when authoritative sources lie about what X said, as for example when Marx said things that subsequently got revised out of Marxism, so "authoritative" (which is to say Marxist) sources lie about what Marx said, or X is someone unpopular, such as Sarah Palin. Thus, for example, there are no end of authoritative sources that tell us that Sarah Palin said that there is one Korea, not two, or that Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house, or that Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere ratted the revolutionaries out to the British, or that Sarah Palin said ...

In the case of Sarah Palin it is pretty clear that reliance on "authoritative" sources such as the mainstream press and academia, might well severely mislead, and only reliance on primary sources is likely to be accurate. If it is likely to mislead on Sarah Palin, it is even more likely to mislead on Jared Tayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James A. Donald (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is it that criticism has been folded into the page itself with quotes in the opening paragraph from opposition sources regarding the man as a 'white supremacist' rather than relegated to a unique tab? This style does not have a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.51.149 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

== Based on Taylor's antecedents and career and the definition of white supremacist the description would appear to be accurate. "White supremacist" is a description most readers would have no problem understanding.

Board members

The board members of the New Century Foundation can be found on publicly available 990s on GuideStar or the Foundation Center. In 2012, they were Jared Taylor, George Resch, and Wayne Lutton [Source: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/616/616212159/616212159_201212_990O.pdf]. Jared Taylor denies even knowing a white supremacist [Source: http://www.amren.com/features/2013/01/liberal-name-calling/] and, as is noted in this Wiki, has said Asians are "objectively superior" to whites by "just about any" quantitative measure. George Resch certainly can't be described as a "notorious white supremacist" (a Google search for "George Resch white supremacist" returns nothing applicable). Wayne Lutton may be described as "anti-immigrant" or may be said to have a white racial consciousness, but he has never made statements that would indicate he is a "white supremacist" [Source: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/wayne-lutton].Wiki sourcer732 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The form is not a reliable source as people do not have to be mentioned on that form and the statements refers to past board members. Amren is a primary source and not reliable, no past or present board members are named as being white supremacists. It states that the organisation has had "some of the most notorious white supremacists in the United States" on its board. It is sourced to a reliable source. Jarkeld (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The source is mistaken. All board members must be mentioned on form 990. If anyone knows of a board member not mentioned on that form, he should notify the IRS. Wiki sourcer732 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable. You can take it to Reliable sources noticeboard if you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does it deserve mention in the article at all, much less the lede section? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Because Taylor is its president? And because a generic reader of Wikipedia is not going to know what exactly the New Century Foundation is. Ditto for NPI. To a generic reader these would be just random acronyms or bland names. But these are not your run-of-the-mill orgs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see how a briefer description of American Renaissance might be worth noting in the lede (and without their self-serving description), but I don't see why characterizations of the board members of New Century Foundation deserve mention in the lede.

What's especially troubling is that those descriptions are all we have about the organizations in the entire article.

How about moving the info on American Renaissance and New Century Foundation from the lede to the body, and provide a much briefer introduction to American Renaissance in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that there is not enough on NCF and AR (also Occidental Quarterly) in the body of the article. If I'm not mistaken there used to be some but it got removed (it's been awhile since I looked a this article, and it's one of those that has near constant monkey business going on). I'll try expanding that portion. However, since Taylor is the president of NCF it should be mentioned in the lede. And since it should be mentioned, it should be briefly described. I also do agree that we could do with a shorter description for AR in the lede - just as long as it's an accurate description.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed the lede. Care to start a section on AR/NCF? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Views

Could someone explain their positions in the recent removal [13] of various viewpoints of Taylor? Have these been discussed before? At a glance, the sources look rather poor... --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edits again, we've had an IP removing material some of which belonged and some didn't, and an editor with only 5 edits all concerning Taylor revising the lead. I've reinstated some material to the lead, but I think that the Japanese material doesn't belong. As for holocaust denial, the material that was in the article probably doesn't belong but Taylor has always had an uneasy alliance with holocaust deniers and that should probably be in the article. See the SPLC piece at [14] and an SPLC interview with someone who worked for Taylor here.[15] This ADL paper[16] shows some links. As does this ADL blog about the AMREN conference this month.[17] I've seen his association with Mark Weber mentioned in other places. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Doug above. The Holocaust denial stuff is probably relevant but could use better sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History

This source, at least with regard to Taylor, is poor. It claims he started American Renaissance in 1994, when in fact it was 1990. It claims the New Century Foundation has an editorial board, which is not true of either that organization or its project, American Renaissance. It also claims "some of the most notorious white supremacists in the United States" are on that non-existent board. The author cites no sources for this claim and names no names. Even if it is referring to the board of directors, this is not true (see above).Wiki sourcer732 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. We don't refute sources with original research. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Jewish -- really?

The infobox States that he is Jewish, without actually linking to any reliable sources indicating that he converted to Judaism or self-identifies as such.

The article states that his parents were Christian missionaries (with sources) so it is clear that he was not raised Jewish.

I'm going to remove the claim that he is Jewish from the infobox in the absence of reliable sources. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've semi-protected the article as it's obvious this isn't going to stop. Doug Weller (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

He is also the spokesperson for the Council of Conservative Citizens Haloman800 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jared Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080425090412/http://www.amren.com:80/store/paved_with_good.html to http://www.amren.com/store/paved_with_good.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalist

This is not productive anymore. Consensus has been established, and a neutrally worded WP:RFC would be the next step. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like sources indeed describe Taylor as both an author and a journalist: Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I'm not contesting that. I'm sure sources describe him as lots of things, but the lede should summarize the body. I don't see any explanation of his activities as a journalist. Is being an editor considered part of that? If so, then Wikipedia is implying that American Renaissance is a news outlet, which, being generous, is controversial. Has he worked as a journalist somewhere else? If so, the article doesn't say where, so it's not clear why this is a defining characteristic. Not all pundits or non-fiction writers are jounalists. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) The way you laid it out makes sense. I agree that the subject's current occupation is not journalism. I will remove the identification of as a journalist from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) He was a conventional journalist for many years in his youth, then set up Amren, of which he is an editor. "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists...", so yes, being an editor is part of being a journalist by wikipedia's definition. Maybe you or I could argue about whether you think he is or isn't in this context, but I think that distinction is better left to reliable sources who have frequently called him a journalist. Zaostao (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Very few people know Taylor primarily as a journalist, even in the sense which includes editors, because American Renaissance is not widely accepted as a news outlet. That he was a journalist in the past, briefly at Washington Post and again at PC Magazine (sort of) are distractions. MOS:BLPLEAD advises against "overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable." I don't see strong signs that he's notable for his journalism, specifically, so I think that applies here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Agree with Grayfell (talk) on this point. He's notable for one reason only: his promotion of white nationalism as an ideology. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources that focus on Taylor are writing about him because he's a white nationlist - not because he's a journalist (or author, for that matter). I'd be all for taking "author" and "journalist" out of the lead because that's simply not what he's known for. At a minimum, the main descriptor for him should be "white nationalist" in the lead. While other editors may be (and have been) more diplomatic than I am, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade here: the only reason any editor wants to eliminate (or move further down) the term "white nationalist" is because of the feeling that that term paints Taylor in a negative light. To that I would respond, if a subject makes his primary mission in life the promotion of white nationalism, why on earth would Wikipedia describe him in any other way? I'm changing the lead back to the way it stood for months. Rockypedia (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) You're being very hostile about this, where have I tried to take white nationalism out of the lede? And where have I said that I think white nationalism paints him in a bad light? Wouldn't I try to take out, I don't know, maybe the white supremacist and racist mentions if that was my aim? He spends over 10 years as a conventional journalist, then is the editor of a journal/publication/webzine/whatever for 20+ years and sites such Washington Post state him as being "Jared Taylor, journalist", yet he's still not a journalist? And he's not an author despite publishing multiple books and there being a bibliography section in the article? I'm sorry, but that is simply absurd. Zaostao (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I didn't say he's not a journalist, or an author. I said he's known for, and notable for, being a white nationalist. Do you dispute that? Rockypedia (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I said he's a journalist and is known for being a journalist by WaPo among others, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) One more point to remember - the lead summarizes the body. There's nothing in the body about Taylor being a journalist. Add it there first, and then we can talk about whether it's significant enough to add to the lead. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Part 2 Rockypedia's arguments are convincing. This would be my preferred version for the lead. Moreover, the second sentence in the lead states that the subject is an editor, so the journalism angle is already covered. Add: I combined the first two sentences for a more comprehensive opening: Samuel Jared Taylor is an American white nationalist and the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a webzine often described as a white supremacist publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) That's alright I suppose, but the 'author' description must be re-added as there's a whole books and bibliography section that's not represented in the lede. Zaostao (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) He's an author of books primarily related to white nationalism. If he'd been writing horror novels, or anything else, at the same time that he's been running AmRen, and reliable sources were talking about those books as the primary focus of multiple articles, then I could of course see adding "author" in the first sentence of the lead. Since he hasn't, and they haven't, calling him an "author" in the first sentence would be like calling Tiger Woods a serial cheater in the first sentence of his article - yes, that fact is true, but it's not what he's primarily known for. Rockypedia (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC) He's an author, he's written several books. The content of those books are related to a variety of topics, more so race realism than white nationalism yet race realism has been removed from the lede. The Wall Street Journal also states him as "Jared Taylor, author" and then afterwards mentions his ideology, yet you personally think differently so the article must reflect your opinions instead of what is published in the WSJ? I'll ask you again, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I see you're still clinging to the random order of nouns in one Washington Post article as justification for your whitewashing, when the overwhelming majority of sources refer to Taylor as a white nationalist, first, foremost, and sometimes as nothing BUT a white nationalist. I like the Washington Post, too. Here's one article from them - it's titled "Hear a white nationalist’s robocall urging Iowa voters to back Trump". I'll give you three guesses who the article is about. Here's another hint, that article doesn't refer to him once as an author or journalist. I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. If you want to change the lead, report me to an admin. Watch how quickly you lose that battle. Rockypedia (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) He's notable enough as an author for The Wall Street Journal to describe him as such, he has written several books and the body of the article contains detail about his work as an author and a bibliography section -- isn't the lede supposed to represent the body? I've also never argued against the white nationalism tag so i'm not sure why you keep creating that strawman, and you didn't answer my question, since you're just disregarding sources such as the WSJ because it doesn't fit your narrative, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? If that's the case, why shouldn't everyone just write articles based on original research and feelings? Zaostao (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Please drop the stick. As we've all said, he's an author and some sources mention that, but that's not the threshold Wikipedia uses for the lead. Most of his books are published by his own foundation, making them essentially self-published. None of the content in this article on his books, including the two published by reputable houses, is supported by independent sources. Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources for notability, and the lead summarizes notability. Michelle Obama is a gardener, Tiger Woods is a philander, and Jared Taylor is an author. All of these are sourcable, but none of them belong in the first paragraph of their articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Ditto. Rockypedia (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 'Author', or some other mention of his books, has to be mentioned somewhere if the lede is to represent the body. Also, strangely, Michelle Obama is stated as a lawyer and writer in the first line of her article. Shouldn't the "I'm not disputing that she once worked as a lawyer, nor that she's a writer. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what she's known for. She's known for being Obama's wife. Period. End of story." reasoning apply for her too? There's reliable sources supporting that she's a writer and there's information about her work as a writer in the body of the article, sure, but she's mainly known for being Obama's wife, right? Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC) The second sentence of that article is "She is married to the 44th and current President of the United States, Barack Obama..." Was that supposed to be a gotcha or something? Read MOS:BLPLEAD. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC) "second sentence", yes; unless you're saying the white nationalist description should be moved to the second sentence in this article, i'm not sure what you're getting at. Also doesn't that "activities they took part in or roles they played" line in the link policy and your Mrs. Obama example, along with the lede having to represent the body, mean the author description of Mr. Taylor be in the lede? Zaostao (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC) It was intended as a quick comparison to point out how absurd it is to pick one specific (and flattering) aspect to the exclusion of all greater context, not a direct 1:1 comparison, so dwelling on this further becomes pedantic. Michelle Obama is far, far more notable than Taylor, and the lead of her article is naturally going to be longer and arranged differently. While her notability is derived from her husband's, it's not confined to that, and unlike Taylor, there's a glut of sources about her, including dedicated book-length biographies by reputable publishers. Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. I hope it's obvious that Taylor and Obama are radically different in many, many ways, and their articles should be, also. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC) You were the one who brought us Mrs. Obama, not me, so don't complain about the comparison. Also, the "Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you believe your own opinions on the matter trump that of sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top of this discussion stating that "Taylor is a prolific author", and to believe that is kinda WP:OR, no? Zaostao (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Consensus in this discussion, on this talk page, is that Taylor's notability is confined to being a white nationalist. Zaostao is the only editor to disagree. If Zaostao disagrees with this consensus, his next option is to take it to arbitration. This discussion is simply going in circles, arguing with one editor who is acting like a dog with a bone, and I recommend we all close it. Rockypedia (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Consensus is to use OR instead of reliable sources? I still see no reason as to why author would not be included; there's reliable sources stating Mr. Taylor as an author, there's a bibliography section and lots of detail in the body of the article about him being an author. Also, wouldn't it be expected that someone would be like a "dog with a bone" in a discussion with two sides? Isn't that what talk pages are for? Or am I supposed to argue against myself and support the use of OR instead of reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC) As I said, you're taking us in circles. If you want the lead changed, take it to arbitration. I'm done wasting time on this talk page. I'll weigh in if and when you elevate this. I look forward to the justification you'll present. Rockypedia (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC) You're not answering my questions so I have to ask them again. He's stated as an author by sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top states him as "a prolific author", the article contains a bibliography section as well as a lot of detail on him being an author, but, because of your personal opinion, only white nationalist can be mentioned in the lede? Answer this, do you think your own personal opinion supersedes reliable sources? -- if not, why are you disregarding reliable sources for your own opinions? Zaostao (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Part 3: RfC? A RfC may be another option. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Author or not, prolific or not, he's only notable for being a white nationalist. The more I think about it, the more I think it's focusing on trivial details to misrepresent the central point the sources all make. Were not saying he isn't an author, we're saying that it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead just because a handful of sources use that word to describe him. Saying he's an author in the lead is implying that's why he's notable, which is a subtle kind of editorializing. He's not an author and a white nationalist, as though those were otherwise unrelated. He's an author on books about white nationalism, most of which he published himself. His one and only non-white-nationalist book is obscure and is not substantially covered by any sources. It's incidental to his notability. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC) To use your example again; "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is an American lawyer...", why is that mentioned in the lede (and as the first description) when the vast, vast majority of people know her as Mrs. Obama only? Isn't that editorialising by your definition as it implies that's what she is notable for? Also, you've clearly not read any of Taylor's books, or maybe don't know what white nationalism is -- imagine black nationalism of Malcolm X (who's stated as a "Muslim minister"), except white and with less advocacy of violence, as they're much more related to "race realism" than white nationalism, yet the "race realist" bit was taken out of the lede. And I have to say this again, the "only notable for being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you think your own opinion on the matter is more important than sources such as the WSJ which deem his status as an author notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author". Zaostao (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This is going in circles. An RfC may be a good idea to get wider inputs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC) I've not had my questions answered as to why author would not be included so I have to ask them again. Since there are reliable sources who think that Taylor's status as an author is notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author," or even "prolific author," since there's a bibliography section and a lot of detail about the fact that he's an author in the body of the article (lede should represent the body?) and since there's only personal opinions (how does any editor have the authority to state that a subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree?) stating that he's not notable as an author, why should the lede not state that he's an author? Zaostao (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC) You've had your questions answered by multiple people. Repeating the question over and over isn't productive just because you don't understand or agree with the answers. If you want to put in a proper WP:RFC, go for it, but first rephrase it so that it's not absurdly loaded, please. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Do you mind showing me where my question was answered? Fundamentally it comes down to you (random editor(s)) stating that the subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree. What authority do you have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when RS disagree? Please try to answer this without saying that I'm going in circles or repeating myself. Zaostao (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Part 4: The Answer Here it is the answer: "I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) What authority do you (random editor(s)) have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when WP:RS disagree? Zaostao (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, and in this case the consensus is against using "author". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC) WP:NPOV: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC) You just agreed that he is an author, and reliable sources state his status as an author is notable enough to proclaim him as such. Representing NPOV would be to use RS to describe who Jared Taylor is, fairly and without editorial bias. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The article doesn't say he isn't an author, but not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence, and that's decided by consensus about what the sources say. The consensus as I understand it is that sources may mention that he's an author, but they all overwhelmingly focus on his white nationalism, not his self-publishing career. That's as clear an answer as I can give, so I see no point in playing this game any further. Be mindful of WP:3RR, which it looks like you've already gone over accounting for previous discussions on this. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The article doesn't mention his being an author -- you removed the American authors category, I think. The article mentions that he "authored" books, and has a bibliography section, but doesn't actually state that he's an author anywhere. I agree that not everything belongs in the first sentence but his status as an author is not even disputed by yourselves so i'm not sure why it shouldn't be in the lede. Also, despite how it may seem, I don't actually care about this that much or even think it's of much importance having it in the first sentence as it really won't influence many people's opinions - nor do I think white nationalist is anymore of a slur than black nationalist, but author must be included somewhere if a NPOV is to be represented so how about this: Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. If you don't care about it that much, then you're just being disruptive for no good reason. If you do care about it, file an RFC, as has been recommended by at least three editors. Your personal opinions of white nationalism vs. black nationalism are a non sequitur. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC) See italics. Obviously I care to extent and obviously you do too or you wouldn't have challenged it. You also didn't comment on the suggestion... what is the point of talk pages exactly? Zaostao (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Part 5: Please start an RfC The current consensus is clearly against this wording. The discussion is now in five parts, and is going in circles. This is beginning to border on disruptive editing with the 3RR. I suggest an RfC be started to avoid endless discussions here. Otherwise, pls see WP:STICK. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC) What is wrong this wording? Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. Zaostao (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC) That is not how RFC works, if that's what you're trying to do. You need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Additionally, the wording is not acceptable. It's far too leading, for one thing, and for another it's too open-ended. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC) I wasn't trying to start a RfC, I was asking a question. I really don't see why this needs to be escalated, what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) We've already explained that multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC) No, you said "not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence." I made a concession and you're not responding to the concession, you're still talking about the previous suggestion. What is wrong with 'author' being in the second sentence? It doesn't interfere with the white nationalist description in any way, and you admitted yourself, agreeing with reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal, that he is an author. So what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC) You are a liar: You keep saying "reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal" as if there's more than one. You cherry-picked the one article out of hundreds about him that happens to describe him as an author, and even that article isn't about him; he's mentioned only in passing. You know exactly what you're doing. He's completely self-published - you can write a book, and publish it yourself, but that doesn't make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about yourself. The fact that he has self-published books is mentioned in the lead. Consensus is that that's the most accurate way to describe it. You refuse to accept that consensus. Fine, I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong - knowing you're wrong is enough for me. Case closed. You want to re-open it? Take it to an RfC. Don't want to do that? Your other option is to sit there and leave the page alone. You will never make the change you want by forcing it unilaterally. It's not going to happen. That's not the way this site works. Rockypedia (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC) There is more than one, just look even to the top of this discussion. The book cited there lists Mr. Taylor as a "prolific author." Also, saying that he's "completely self-published" is simply an untruth; read the article, specifically the bibliography section, he's not "completely self-published." Although maybe you're just being hyperbolic. Also, you haven't answered what is wrong with the above wording. It's completely different to all else which has been brought up before yet it hasn't been commented on. Zaostao (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Part 6: WP:NOTAFORUM This discussion is no longer about an improvement to the article (as the proposed wording is not deemed an improvement and has been rejected). I suggest the discussion be hatted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC) I've asked all three of you what is wrong with this wording: Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. and none of you have said what is wrong with it. Creating new sections to deflect questions is the reason why I have to ask these questions again. And then you state that i'm "repeating myself" despite the fact that you never actually answered my question. Please just answer, what is wrong with the above wording? It doesn't interfere or "bury" the white nationalism description, and all three have you agreed with me that Taylor is an author. So what is wrong wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over the word "author"

I've had enough of Zaostao's circular arguments and refusal to accept valid explanations by simply restating the same questions that have already been answered, and claiming he hasn't received an answer. It's a waste of time. After his 4 reverts today, I started a discussion involving his behavior at the Edit warring noticeboard. This discussion, as far as I'm concerned, has long outlived its usefulness. Rockypedia (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, enough is enough. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations in lede

I removed the text here which was not supported by sources. The previous sources were:

• A wordpress blog, unusable for BLP claims of racism: http://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/student-group-h/
• A NY Times article, which, although usable did not support the claim Mr. Taylor promotes racist ideologies: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/us/conservatives-voices-enter-clinton-s-dialogue-on-race.html
• A listing by the SPLC with no secondary sourcing.

New sources have been added but still none support the claim he "promotes racist ideologies." I have no objection to including this text if suitable sources can be found. Please do not continue to restore this text until consensus can be established that suitable sources exist. The previous consensus - based on a wordpress blog, an article that doesn't address claim, and an SPLC listing, carries no weight.

Here is a list of current sources claimed to support the statement he "promotes racist ideologies"

• http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0123-02.htm
• https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance
• http://www.salon.com/2014/10/11/americas_virulent_racists_the_sick_ideas_and_perverted_science_of_the_american_renaissance_foundation/
• http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/NC/20070413/News/605102164/WM/
• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/alt-right-conservative-movement-embraces-trump-campaign.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-alt-movement-emerging-force-2016-race/story?id=41647165

Many of these sources don't even make the claim - can those supporting its restoration pare them down so we can analyze and discuss. D.Creish (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no wordpress ref. I've provided secondary sourcing for the splc. If your issue is the word "promotes", "adheres to" or "espouses" works just as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no wordpress ref because I removed it several hours ago. I'm examining the sources you and VM have added but so far I don't see the claim supported. The fox news sources for example, does not claim Taylor "promotes racist ideologies." My issue is not with the word "promotes" - it's that we require sources making that claim explicitly. It's not sufficient to say he promotes white nationalism, which most consider a racist ideology, therefore he promotes racism - as much I agree (personally) it must be explicit to satisfy BLP. Can you point me towards the ones in the list that do? I've edited my post to include your most recent source. D.Creish (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: The newly added ABC source, which I've just read, also does not support the claim. They quote an SPLC representative who identifies the American Renaissance journal as "a racist journal." but do not explicitly claim Taylor promotes racist ideologies. D.Creish (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To add material to the lead covering these issues, no additional sources are necessary -- all that's needed is to summarise what's already in the article regarding his promotion of racism. Summarising what's in the article is what the lead should do -- and there's no need to provide additional sources to do this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The claim he "promotes racist ideologies" is found nowhere in the body. There are tangential, supported claims. I see two dead-linked sources (SPLC and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and one working SPLC source. Are there others? D.Creish (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Promoted racist ideologies" is a perfectly reasonable summary of what appears in the body. I think it would be unwise to dispute this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Inflammatory claims about living persons in language not directly supported by the sources is not reasonable. D.Creish (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth has restored the text with the edit summary: This would be a BLP violation if it weren't reliably sourced; it is reliably sourced. I'm having difficultly accepting the sincerity of that claim when the first source restored is a dead link. Did you examine the sources before restoring and calling them reliable? D.Creish (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you're taking a more constructive approach now, finding your own sources instead of blanking material. Congratulations! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)