![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Jared Taylor is a hard-core, right wing, bigoted, disgusting white supremacist and it really feels like this write-up glosses over that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.67.254 ( talk) 17:38, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a little biased to have all those references to leftist "anti-racist" sites? One ought to suffice.
The first link isn't really worth anyone's time to read. It's just trying to demonise Taylor by associating him with figures it claims are 'neo-fascist' despite the fact that they explicity say they aren't (See British National Party/ Nick Griffin). This article from a "progressive" website is the very definition of bias. It's not information, it's defamation. - The boy that picked flowers and made people laugh
I just wanted to note that while I personally disagree with many of the decidedly unrealistic and silly conclusions Taylor reaches (separation of the races within America, etc.) and find him to be a tad obnoxious at times, if you read his information at no point does he advocate or argue the supremacy of whites. Taylor is very comfortable in acknowledging that Ashkenazi Jews (whom he considers white for all intents and purposes) and north Asians score higher on IQ tests than Anglo whites. Therefore, trying to claim Jared Taylor is a white supremacist is both unproductive and demonstrably untrue. Just my two cents. 65.92.53.132 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Pepe
The Color of Crime cites statistics provided by the US Depatment of Justice and state correctional authorities; Jared Taylor isn't simply making up his own statistics nor is he distorting the provided statistics.
For instance, current statistics show that blacks are represented are imprisioned at a rate of around 1100 per 100,000 as compared to whites at less than 200 per 100,000 (approximately 180). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime
http://www.isteve.com/Crime_Imprisonment_Rates_by_Race.htm
http://www.isteve.com/crime_imprisonment_data_by_state_by_race.htm
I think this ariticle would be improved by removing the last paragraph with the quotes by Mark Potok. It's enough to say that he has critics and to name those critics, but you don't need direct quotes from his critics especially with none from Taylor himself. - James S. 09:26, 09 March 2006 (PST)
Jared Taylor has personally told me that he is more of a paleolibertarian than anything else. Now since that is anecdotal you may not believe me. But, ee has written for the Last Ditch, which is libertarian, and wrote in praise of Democracy the God that Failed on two sites(one of which is his own) while praising the Mises Institute in the VDare column. The links are here and here http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ http://www.amren.com/0201issue/0201issue.html#article2 and http://www.vdare.com/taylor/hoppe.htm I don't see how you can use the term white nationalist while using the term paleolibertarian considering white nationalism can be used to mean a lot of different things while paleolibertarian may mean something that is not usually nationalistic. That's why I changed his opening sentence from paleoconservative, white nationalist to paleolibertarian, racalist. Why is that wrong? I will go ahead and do it and have someone tell me why I am wrong if that comes up
Considering those sources are reliable since they are all from his own mouth I believe they should not be omitted.
Ok if that is the case, then the previous paleoconservative, white nationalist label was under that category and nobody here protested even though there was not evidence constituting for that other than his vdare articles opposed to citizenism. If someone wanted to take down the current label and put nothing in its place, then that would be fine with me. But if someone is going to put what was previous to it, then I will have to protest.
I have restored “White Nationalist” to the lead. Doing an advanced Google search of Amren brings up multiple citable sources; however, the one I choose to use gives a broader range of Taylor’s views on the subject than any specific example from Amren. Clearly the readers and writers of Amren see themselves as Paoloconservative, as per a google search, but in searching Amren I could not find anything to directly tie that label to Taylor, nor could I find anything of him or his readers embracing the label paleolibertarian. Brimba 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a reader of Amren and know other readers from amren. There are many who do not seem themselves paleoconservatives. I ran an advanced google search with paleolibertarian and found multiple citable sources. On the Amren site, there is nothing that says white nationalism. So I am taking it off
Yeah I never said the search under white nationalist did not have more but that still doesn't refute my point of pointing out that on the American Renaissance site it does not mention white nationalism. It mentions race and being pro-European/White.
From Wikipedia, "Nationalism is a political ideology[1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles." Now where does Taylor say anything like this that the White race takes precedence over any social or political principle? That is what is implied by White nationalism.
This sentence in the article should be deleted:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>
According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," but Potok provides no sources for these claims.
Assuming that I actually used these words in some discussion of blacks (this is Jared Taylor writing), it is impossible to know whether I was writing about one black, some blacks, or all blacks. The implicaiton, of course, is that I think all blacks are "pathological," "deviant," etc., which is something I have never thought, never said, and never written.
The sentence should therefore be removed permanently because it is unsourced and therefore unverifiable, and because it is a deliberate distortion of my views.
68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not denying that Mark Potok has written the sentence included in this article. I think it is a silly distortion of my writing, but if it is to remain in the article, I would appreciate it if the following reply from me could be included:
<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."
I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I have noted above that I think a qotation from Mark Potok is an unfair distortion. In this connection, Mr. Beback wrote:
<< It is verifiable that Potok quotes Taylor as saying those things.[4] If Taylor wants to publish as denial we can print that too. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)>>
Therefore I would be grateful if my reply to Mr. Potok, indicated above and repeated below, could be added to the article:
<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."
I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >>
Jared Taylor
On May 16, 2007, I sent the following message to Wikipedia staff, which remained unaswered two weeks later:
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am the subject of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor and would like to request several corrections and clarifications.
(1) The following sentence is incorrect:
<< Taylor also sits on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a director of the National Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. >>
At one time it was accurate, but I am no longer on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly nor am I any longer a director of the National Policy Institute.
(2) The following sentence is also incorrect:
<< New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which singles out African Americans and Hispanics as the chief cause of crime in America. >>
Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians, but they are *not* the chief cause(s) of crime, because they are minorities of 12 percent and 13 percent respectively. Because whites are still a majority of the American population, they account for a considerable amount of crime even though they commit crime at lower rates than blacks or Hispanics. The following sentence would be accurate:
“New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which uses government crime statistics to show that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians.”
(3) The following sentence is a silly distortion of my views:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>
This string of out-of-context adjectives is not serious or legitimate criticism. Mr. Potok presumably bases part of his criticism on the following paragraph of which I am the author:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—the undisputed equals of whites—in such an abject state."
I think it is important for readers to know in what context I used the words “crime-prone” and “dissipated.” As for “pathological” and “deviant,” I can find no instance in my own work of having described blacks – either individually or as a group – as “pathological” or “deviant.” Perhaps Mr. Potok made this up, in which case the “quotation” is, in part, false.
I would suggest that Mr. Potok’s sentence of criticism of removed. Mr. Potok can express his opinions about me all he wants, but it is not fair to pass off his spurious and out-of-context “quotations” from my own work as a legitimate representation of what I think.
(4) The following sentence and paragraph are extremely misleading:
<< Right-wing Jewish critics have described elliptical statements by Taylor concerning the Holocaust as indicating a latent anti-Semitism. >>
There is no sense in which I am “latently anti-Semitic” or a Holocaust denier. I have had Jewish collaborators in every aspect of my political work. The charge of Holocaust denial is easily shown to be false. In response to a question as to whether the Nazi genocide resulted on the death of six million Jews, I replied, simply, that I had not looked into it. I meant, of course, the figure of six million, which is the only aspect of that question about which I would expect there to be debate.
I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.
I strongly urge that this entire section be taken out.
I realize you have a lot of work to do, but inaccuracies, distortions, and malicious charges are hurtful. I would appreciate your making these corrections at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours, Jared Taylor
I would strongly suggest that Mr. Taylor - who is clearly not a gentleman - be introduced to our worthy readers immediately - that is, in the opening sentence - as a racist (or racialist if you will - I find the distinction between the two specious and tiresome...) because it is chiefly for that aspect of his personality that his work has received the morsel of attention that allows him to be regarded as a public figure. Obnoxious and woefully misguided as he appears to be, Mr. Taylor seems to make an effort to think clearly at most times and as far as I am aware does not contend with the application of the label 'racist' to his person. In addition to all that has been said about leftist biases against Mr. Taylor: The man is not exactly a proponent of peace and harmony in the world. His paradigm sets out to promote strife and discord among the peoples of this tiny planet and as such is less than conducive to the progress of mankind into an ethically sound state of coexistence. The man must be characterised as what he is: a marplot, a vicious attacker of the peace and an intellectual arsonist. There is no doubt that Jared Taylor is a potentially very dangerous man. Somebody whose sole public existence is based on polarisation and wilful characterisation of others can only be characterised himself by means of polarisation.
Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the policy page above. I understand your concerns. I still think, however, that the term 'racist' (or' racialist') as denoting someone whose persona is overwhelmingly characterised by a mindset that categorises people according to their ethnic background is not necessarily slanderous. I understand its problematic nature, however, and concede that it should, for that reason, be avoided as a label. I would, lastly, be interested to know if Mr. Taylor himself would object to being labelled a racist/racialist.
Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Taylor is a racist on the basis of the definition of racism. His ideas on immigration are not part of the equation. Disregarding the troll, however, Mr. Beback: thank you for clarifying. 'Racialist' would be the safe and encyclopedic option. I have decided to leave the matter of changing the beginning of the article to somebody more experienced than myself. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I could at this point, dear 82.100.61.114, enter into a worthwhile discussion with you about structural violence. But alas, your primary objective seems to be the engagement in a subform of conventional heckling. And as you seem woefully reluctant to endow yourself with a name I find myself entirely unable to react to any of your statements forthwith. Oh, and as for what you would doubtless refer to as 'braininess', I believe the correct phrase in English would have been: "You should also leave commenting 'ON' this article to someone...". Forgive me if this is an unjust correction considering your own background, but here in England that is how we would put it. Good Bye for good and sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to Will Beback for the changes he made. I would add that the National Policy Institute web page no longer lists me as a director, so the article's reference to that position should be in the past tense.
I note that in a comment dated June 7, someone calling himself Ignacio Bibcraft urged Wikipedia to refer to me as a "racist," and I appreciate Mr. Beback's resistance to doing so. Mr. Beback expressed some curiosity as to how I might refer to myself.
First, I have always rejected the term "racist." Whatever the word means -- and definitions are so many and fluid I'm not sure anyone knows -- it implies some kind of moral inferiority. This I completely deny. My views on race are the result of many years of reflection and study. I consider them not only healthy and moral, but entirely in accord with what we know of history and human nature.
So what do I call myself?
The article says I have called myself a "racialist" and a "white separatist," but only the former is true. I have used the term "racialist" but do not recall ever calling myself a "white separatist." One would search the pages of my publication, American Renaissance, in vain for any such self-description. It is a mistake (or at the very least long out of date) and should be removed from the article.
Although I have used the term "racialist," I am not satisfied with it, partly because I agree with Mr. Bibcraft: the distinction between "racist" and "racialist" is not clear. Neither word has a useful definition. I have therefore not called myself a "racialist" for many years.
For some time, I have instead described myself as a race realist. A Google search of "Jared Taylor" and "race realist" will result in many pages of hits. This term is admittedly unfamiliar to most people, so what does it mean? Put concisely, it means recognizing at least the following: (1) That race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. (2) That although essentially all ranges of abilities are found in people of different races, there are important traits -- intelligence is the best studied -- in which there are racial differences in average ability. The evidence is overwhelming that these differences are at least partly genetic in origin.
I would add that my basic thinking about race has not changed a great deal since 1990, when I first began publishing American Renaissance. I might have forestalled confusion if I had hit upon the term "race realist" from the outset. In any case, it is the most accurate term with which to describe both me and my work.
Jared Taylor 219.127.127.156 07:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking part in this discussion, Mr. Taylor. I greatly appreciate your clarification on what one should call you. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that 'racist' is not really a pejorative term. Of course most of us would hate to be called racists because it implies a deeply offensive ideology. Proponents of this ideology, however, generally seem to be okay with it. Mr. Taylor, it appears, is unhappy with both 'racist' and 'racialist' and suggests that 'race realist' would be the term to apply. (And yes, of course Wikipedia is not in the business of describing people as they wish to be described, but then, after all, that's how this whole discussion started. I was asked to read the article on biographies of living persons and refrain from calling Taylor a racist. Now Taylor, our living person, has added his two cents to this discussion, which appears to be exactly the point of this whole 'living persons' - thing, and whatever we think of him, his involvement in this discussion is commendable.) The term 'race-realist', however, is highly problematic in two respects. Firstly, it is little known and does not appear to be 'legal tender' in most academic circles. Secondly and most importantly, however, the term 'race realist' is subjective and aggrandising in its suggestion that to agree with an ideology such as the one propagated by Mr. Taylor is to be 'realistic' while taking the opposite view would most likely be 'unrealistic' or perhaps romantic. This taken into consideration I agree with Mr. Beback. Describe as racialist and follow up with him having been called racist. My reservations, however, remain. I think the difference between racist and racialist is murky at best, and neither is, coolheadedly, to be understood as being pejorative. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone now claims I have had “dalliances with Japanese women” and that “evidence” has “surfaced” that I have a girlfriend named Yumi Akisada. I have never had a “dalliance with a Japanese woman,” and have never heard of Yumi Akisada. If such a person exists, I’m sure she will be astonished to read this nonsense.
I would have thought my sex life was of no interest to anyone, and replied in that vein when asked about it by a Canadian television reporter. I see, however, that people are prepared to believe all kinds of unsubstantiated rubbish. To anyone who claims I have had sexual relations with non-whites: Produce the evidence.
These charges are false and should be removed.
In fact there is incontrovertible evidence supporting the allegations of a relationship involving Mr Taylor and Yumi Akisada. Details will be available within two to three weeks (by mid July 07).
I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.
False charges that can be clearly demonstrated as such have no place in a Wikipedia biography.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Footnote number 11, used as a source on this suggestion that Mr. Taylor has been involved with a relationship with a Japanese, does not work. I would be in favour of removing the paragraph about this, since there does not seem to be any reliable evidence to support the assertions it contains.
Eeaee
10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes... Sensational and exciting as it may be to attribute 'interracial relations' to Mr. Taylor - the claim does seem unsubstantiated. Footnote 11 links to a page that currently contains no information about Taylor whatsoever. I'm going to look into the Herald and rectify the link if possible. Otherwise I will delete it altogether. In any case, the wording of the associated section would have to be modified. It is highly detrimental to Wikipedia's standards to include unsubstantiated claims and back them up with a single dead link. I would implore all of us to put the work in and search for reliable sources for these allegations in order to modify the article accordingly. Until then I suggest we remove the section altogether. It really doesn't help.
Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that others have recognized that these charges are false, please mitigate the damages by removing this section promptly.
Also, if the false charges of Holocaust denial are not removed, at the very least please insert my refutation.
Thank you.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mr. Taylor: the above statements do not mean exactly that we recognise the false nature of the allegations, but simply that we cannot produce the evidence. Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The dispute about Mr. Taylor's views on the Holocaust was (I believe) conducted here:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
Mr. Taylor seems to make it quite clear that the Holocaust did take place, by writing:
"The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews."
clearly indicating the ethnic/religious persecution that the Jews suffered, as well as the massive nature of this persecution. It is misleading thus to say in the article that "he [Mr. Taylor] did not have an opinion on the six million figure" without referring to the rest of Mr. Taylors comments.
The article has not charged Mr Taylor with Holocaust denial. It simply states that some Jewish Palaeoconservatives have argued that Mr Taylor's vague statements on subject, could imply a sympathy towards the views of those such as Mark Weber, an avowed antisemite and an unregenerate Holocaust denier. So it is reasonable to leave this paragraph in unchanged.
As for the issue of the supposed relationship with a Japanese, I cannot find any other document referring to this apart from the wikipedia page. As well as being pretty puerile for an encyclopedia article, if it remains unverified, it should be removed. At the moment there is nothing to suggest it is anything more than fiction written directly into Wikipedia. Eeaee 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And as such I have removed said section entirely. Whoever fancies doing so may revert it once the supporting evidence has been produced along with a host of reliable, live links. Bibcraft 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Bibcraft. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry... Bibcraft 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Bibcraft has noted that the allegations about my inter-racial amours are utterly unsourced and should not appear in the article. He has also acknowledged that I have written: "The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews." He therefore appears to agree that accusations of Holocaust denial are unfounded. (I have also stated that my only doubt about the figure of six million victims is that I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally accepted estimates – four to six million – are the most accurate.)
Charges of interracial sex and Holocaust denial nevertheless keep appearing, in what is beginning to approach the level of vandalism. I understand Wikipedia can suspend the access privileges of vandals, and I request that this be done.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The "better sourced" material links to an article in the American Renaissance news archive. A journalist tells me he thought I was "rattled" when asked about interracial relations. He adds, accurately, that I corrected him, saying I was "annoyed" (that professional journalists would sink so low as to ask about my sex life.) That is as far as the story goes. There is nothing in it to suggest "loss of composure," or an "angry response." Again, this kind of irresponsible "editing" amounts to vandalism.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 04:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to label Jared Taylor's position on interracial relationships "hypocrisy" unless the editors can find some material proving so. With that being the case, charges of "hypocrisy" should be removed. Paleoconservativeone 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The American Renaissance link carrying Jared Taylor's own official statement regarding the Holocaust, and about his email exchange in the matter made public, seems entirely relevant to this discussion. It's removal is not warranted. Paleoconservativeone 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This vandalism is becoming extremely tiresome. There is once again an allegation about my “intimate relationship” with someone I have never heard of. What is the source cited? This discussion page! Whoever is making these unfounded allegations should be denied access to Wikipedia.
There is considerably more of this article that is factually wrong, but the vandals appear determined to keep it that way. I note especially that someone keeps arguing that I “question the extent of the Holocaust.” I have said only that I do not have the specialized historical knowledge to judge which of several estimates of the death toll is most accurate. My own explanation has been repeatedly removed from this article. This is yet more vandalism, and I would like to know what the people who run Wikipedia plan to do about it.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Jared; allegations were in fact made, and the article now states that these allegation were largely groundless. However the fact remains that allegations were made and these allegations were denied by you. Having this in Wikipedia is entirely appropriate.
I disagree that these charges should be part of the article. It is true that allegations have been made, but with no basis or corroboration. Someone promised "incontrovertible evidence," which has, of course, not been produced. If someone accuses me -- without any evidence -- of wife-beating or child molestation or racketeering, are these charges to become legitimate parts of this article as well?
Wikipedia's credibility is not served by repeating charges for which there is not a shred of evidence.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Alabamawhiteman to Mr Taylor: firstly I have not touched the section about the Halifax incident. The allegation of "repeated harassment" is definitely not of my doing. About Holocaust 'denial' it is obvious, to anyone who has read the original debate on "inverted world", that you doubt the official version of the 'Holocaust' story - justifiably so in my opinion. Come on Mr Taylor - be honest. About Ms Akisada - I know, many others know and most of all you yourself know that the allegations made are one hundred percent true. The healthiest option for both yourself and more importantly our movement, would be to come clean on this aspect of your life and forswear forever more what were justifiably called non-white 'dalliances.'
To Alabamawhiteman: Is there any evidence to suggest Mr. Taylor has had a relationship with Ms. Akisada, or even that Ms. Akisada actually exists? If there is not, it should not be in Wikipedia. Read
WP:VERIFY and reconsider whether this allegation should remain in this article.
Eeaee
16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the lady's email: yumi.akisada@gmail.com As a white man and a white nationalist, I am angered by the appalling way Jared has treated this woman. He is a spineless creep who has dishonored his wife, family and race.
Look, "Alabamawhiteman," you have not produced a shred of evidence that this women even exists, much less that I have ever met her. Not a shred. Did you invent this nonsense yourself, or did you hear it from someone else? If the latter, from whom did you hear it, and what was the aleged evidence? You should be ashamed of yourself for circulating this utterly groundless charge.
I stand behind the statement on the Holocaust that is on the AR web page. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Jared, I first heard rumors of your interracial trysts back in September last year. Personally I believe that Alabamawhiteman may well be on to something here. And yes the name Akisada has cropped up occasionally. However the allegations are not fully substantiated- so for now they do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Later on the situation may change. G Bathurst
To Mr. Bathurst: These allegations are not "fully substantiated." They are not substantiated at all. No one has produced *anything* that could be remotedly considered evidence, and this is because there is none to be produced. The name Akisada has cropped up, so far as I know, only in Wikipedia. At any rate, I appreciate your insistance that these charges not be included in the article, and I can assure you they will never be "substantiated." Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this section, I think, 3 or 4 times now because it violates WP policy on living persons:
The two items have nothing to do with each other. Putting them together this way to draw a conclusion is original research. Besides that it is an invasion of his privacy to talk about his possible dating habits. That has nothing to do with his notability. The only people who think it is notable seem to be those who think that he should be even more racist than he is. (p.s. Both Tayor "making clear his feelings" and the reporter's opinion about him being "rattled" are mind reading.) Steve Dufour 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion as an attack article. Taylor is notable, although a fairly minor figure. However, WP could get along without an article on him since this one seems to exist mainly for the purpose of attacking him. The attacks come, ironically enough, from people who are unhappy that he is not as racist as they think he should be. Steve Dufour 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
From Jared Taylor: It would suit me fine to delete this article entirely for the reasons Mr. Dufour proposes. As an alternative, I understand that Wikipedia can lock articles. What about the possibility of including only facts about me that are undisputed -- background, books written, positions held -- and then locking it? I would consider it a blessing if the article were either eliminated or limited to the barest of facts. There are still, by the way, a number of assertions in the article that are not at all supported by the sources cited.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Mstrrce 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Jared: I don't think Wikipedia's job is to write biographical articles that satisfy only the wishes of the subject of the article. Of course you would be happy for the article to just present the bare-bone facts about yourself and your organization. But then the article would not be a biography befitting on encyclopedia- but rather just a portal into Amren and free advertising for your brand of 'white' nationalism. I agree that unsubstantiated rumors such as those concerning your interracial liasons have no place in a Wikipedia article - regardless of their actual verity.
However your views on miscegenation, your answer to a television journalist who questioned you on this matter are highly topical. And the description of yourself being 'rattled' comes from an impeccable source - your own website. The issue of miscegenation is perhaps the centrepiece issue of White Nationalism. Surely including your own views on this issue is completely appropriate. Thus I have restored this section to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrrce ( talk • contribs)
I've protected the page so that the dispute can be settled here. Please remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. I suggest that folks propose drafts of what they'd like the section to cover. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here.
First, I’d like to thank Will Beback for locking the article in its present state, thus keeping out the utterly unsubstantiated allegations about my amours.
This version is an improvement over many others. However, even if editors agree on what should be in the article, if it is ever unlocked, it will be subject to vandalism and tendentious editing. I would far prefer that this article be deleted and kept deleted. It has already caused a lot more bother for you and for me than any article should.
In the meantime, I will examine a number of errors, both of fact and of emphasis. These are in sequential order, not order of importance. My most *important point* is No. (7), “Views on the Holocaust.”
(1) First Sentence
The current first sentence says: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>
No one really know what “racialist” means, so this sentence – although otherwise factually correct -- is not illuminating. The “source” given for this sentence never uses the word “racialist.” What are “racialist theories?” I would suggest the following:
<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who explores the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. >>
If that’s too bland, you could try:
<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of what he calls a “race-realist” perspective one the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>
(2) “Works and Views.” Current first sentence:
<<He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which among other things argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which hypothesizes that multiracialism in the United States is the cause of many of todays social ills;>>
Both book descriptions are wrong; whoever wrote them did not read the books. I wrote the book about Japan when I was still a liberal on race and certainly did not argue “the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race.” On the contrary, I criticized the Japanese quite sharply for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness, and warned that they are not a good model for Americans.
Paved With Good Intentions was not about “multiracialism” and drew no conclusions about it per se. It was an extended critique of “racism” as an explanation for black social failure. The following would be correct descriptions of these two books:
<< He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which argued that Japan is not a good social model for the United States and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which argues that racism is not a convincing explanation for black social failure;>>
(3) The two following sentences are completely unrelated.
<< Taylor insists that he espouses a doctrine of race realism. In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.[3]>>
The first sentence is true; the second is wrong. There was such an interview, but you will search the cited transcript in vain for any such statement by myself. It is pure invention. If, for some reason, you want to cite that interview, you could say <<In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Mexican government officials actually brag that Mexicans are “reconquering” the Southwest United States.>> That, at least, is something I actually said.
(4) “White separatist.” The article contains the following sentence. <<He has described himself as a "racialist" and a "white separatist".>>
In the past, I have described myself as a “racialist,” but I no longer do so for reasons outlined in this discussion page above (see “Thanks to Will Beback . . . . “). Although I have seen a number of web pages that describe me as a “self-described white separatist,” I have no recollection of ever calling myself that. You will certainly not find that self-description in any of my written work. I’d like to know who it is who claims to have *heard* me describe myself that way. I suspect I have never called myself that, and I think that description should be removed.
(5) Here is another very muddled passage. <<Taylor says he is not a white supremacist, whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others. He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent. [5]>>
The first sentence is correct. But having just defined “white supremacy” as the desire to rule over others, would I be likely to say that Asians should rule over whites (“Asian supremacy”)? Let’s look at the source cited for the second sentence. It is a journalist describing a conversation with me as follows: “He dismissed the ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ accusations as empty epithets. If anything, he says he is a yellow supremacist because he believes Asians are genetically the smartest race, then whites, then blacks.” Therefore the sentence in the Wiki article is a paraphrase of a journalist’s paraphrase of my conversation with him--which, by the way, says nothing about “advanced humans (in evolutionary terms).” This is very sloppy work.
Why can’t the article refer to something I have actually done or said rather than paraphrase a paraphrase? It is relevant to note that I consider blacks superior to whites in some respects. I suggest the following:
<<Taylor has published arguments supporting the view that backs have a genetic superiority to other races in certain athletic endeavors. [3] In response to charges of “white supremacy,” Taylor has written: “There is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ . . . . It is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.” [4]
(6) More muddled thinking in the following passage:
<<Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.">>
I did write those words attributed to me, and they are some of the harshest I have ever written about blacks. That is why “anti-racists” like to quote them, and that is why they appear in Wikipedia--not because they are characteristic or representative. However the sentence with which they are introduced makes no sense. The sentence refers to blacks living entirely on their own, not living in a “civilized” society, or one not of their own making. As the quotation says, I am talking about blacks “left entirely to their own devices.”
If you insist that out of millions of words I have written about race, these are ones that Wikipdia feels compelled to include, you should leave out the first sentence. It only adds confusion.
(7) “Views on the Holocaust”
This section should not be in the article. I have never written for publication about the Holocaust nor lectured on it. It is not an area of special study for me at all. I have spent 20 years writing and lecturing about race. To have a section called “Views on the Holocaust” that is almost as long as “Works and Views” is completely wrong. Why is this section even here?
It is here only because someone who already disagrees with me about something else, has taken a single sentence I wrote and twisted it maliciously to say that I have suspicious “views on the Holocaust.” Obviously, in my one-line reply, I was writing about the six million figure, not whether the Holocaust occurred. I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally proposed victim totals of 4 to 6 million is most accurate.
I gave a single-line reply in a private e-mail message to an unknown sender, and suddenly I’m accused of Holocaust denial. Quite absurd, really. *At least* this section now has my denunciation of this charge as absurd and malicious. Many version of the article have removed this important point.
<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [5] >>
My views in this respect are, in fact, *vastly* more significant than my one-line expression of ignorance about the Holocaust death total. You will find my views on Jewish participation sharply debated and attacked on many Internet pages.
(8) “Praise and Criticism”
To trot out David Duke as the first source of praise is obviously an attempt to discredit me, but when I checked the source, he seems to have said those words about me. At one point, someone had included praise of me from Samuel Francis, praise I far prefer to that of David Duke. Any reason why that can’t be included to balance David Duke? The text was:
<< The late paleoconservative, Samuel Francis, has written of Taylor, “What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers—not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed.” [6] >>
(9) More “sympathy to Holocaust denial.” The following is in the article:
<<Other critics have described Taylor as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and have accused him of sympathy to Holocaust denial.>>
The sum total of “sympathy to Holocaust denial” of which I am aware is my one-line e-mail message quoted above. This does not bear repeating here.
(10) External Links
The link to the Color of Crime (the second of the links) is to the 1998 version. The link should be to the latest version, and should therefore be: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime
(11) Possible Additions.
I realize, first of all, that editors of Wikipedia do not agree with my views on race. However, what is the purpose of this article: to caricature and discredit those views or to present an accurate, concise summary of them? Should direct quotations from me only be those selected by my critics? Surely not. If I have any reason to be in Wikipedia at all, it is *because* of the views I attempt to promote, *not* because of the way either critics or admirers characterize those views.
First, I repeat that my positions on Jews in general are extremely important, and include again the text from section (7) above:
<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [7] >>
Someone calling himself Boggs 1980 has written some good summaries of what I think.
What is wrong with including the following, which correctly quotes and summarizes my thinking?
<< Taylor compares racial solidarity to family loyalty: “Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin.” He adds that a preference for one’s own race in no way implies hostility to other races, just as the preference for one’s own children implies no hostility to the children of others. [8] He claims it is a dangerous double standard to encourage non-whites to show racial solidarity and to work openly for group interests while condemning whites who do the same thing. [9] >>
Or the following?
<< Taylor argues that race is not only a valid biological category [10] but is an inevitable part of individual and group identity. He points to consistent racial self segregation—not only in America but around the world—as evidence that race is one of the most basic human fault lines, and a frequent source of conflict. Taylor argues that a preference for people like oneself is natural and even healthy, and that attempts to encourage or force racial integration are misguided. He believes it is impossible to build a society in which race can be made not to matter. [11] >>
Again, these are central aspects of what is in fact a nuanced and carefully elaborated body of work. They deserve to be in an article that purports to be encyclopedic.
But again, I here express my preference that this article be eliminated completely – or, as I suggested earlier, limited only to the barest facts on publications and positions held – and then locked. If unlocked, there will only be more headaches.
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Eeaee 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If a person does not want to appear in Wikipedia, why should he have to? I think that is hardly the point. While Mr Taylor is a relatively minor figure in an overall national sense, within the white nationalist movement he is very well known (even though many true white nationalists would not consider him WN). The quality of any encyclopedia relates in part to its comprehensiveness. Wikipedia has articles on white nationalism, difference in intelligence among the races, and Holocaust revisionism. To have articles on these subjects without a reference to Jared Taylor will render the same articles in a sense incomplete. Deleting the article on Taylor would be be inconsistent with the fact that many people of far less renown than Taylor do rate a mention.
Personally I now undertake not to post details of Taylor's relationship with Ms Akisada, pending the allegations being verified by an independent and reliable source. I apologise to the editor (but certainly not to Taylor) for any inconvenience caused. However, to include Taylor's views on interracial relationships is I think entirely reasonable. After all, miscegenation is a pivotal issue to the WN movement. With respect to Holocaust revisionism I would ask readers here to peruse the relevant thread at inverted world. It should be obvious to most that Taylor initially signaled a disbelief in the Holocaust. It was only when he came under sustaied attack by Auster, Jobel and others that he pulled his head in and issued the statement on Amren stating belief in the Holocaust. Alabamawhiteman 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. "Alabamawhiteman" appears to be convinced I am a Holocaust disbeliever, despite my clear statements to the contrary. I believe Wikipedia has a word for this sort of thing: "mindreading."
As for the desirability of a Wikipedia article about me, it all depends on whether it is accurate and whether it can be protected from people like "Alabamawhiteman"--from whom I would still like an answer to an earlier question: Did you invent Akisada yourself or did someone else? If the latter, what was the "evidence" that has so firmly convinced you of her existence?
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Taylor is both prominent and controversial. Therefore, it would seem that he ought to have an entry in Wikipedia. However, it seems clear to me that his entry should be "bare bones" in terms of containing only incontrovertible facts, such as his background, books written, positions held, etc. There is no dirth of this information. Those seeking further information could be referred to one or both of his websites. The entry should then be locked. Gregraven 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Gregraven's suggestion is probably the best in terms of dealing with the entry for Jared Taylor. People are passionately either for or against him. His entry will be changed daily as a result, and over everything. A locked and neutral site which features only the basic facts about Jared Taylor, as Gregraven proposes, seems to be the only viable option for an entry about him. Otherwise, the article should be shut down completely and Jared Taylor should not be covered by Wikipedia. Paleoconservativeone 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not as a place for anyone to upload his CV– which is what some here seem to want for the benefit of Taylor. An encyclopedia biography should present a balanced, neutral point of view on the subject that includes the views of both admirers and critics. As Taylor is prominent and very well known figure in the racialist movement it behooves Wikipedia to include his biography. Not to do so would mean that the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia is somewhat negated. However even worse would be to have just an innocuous introduction to Taylor that would simply be a portal into his peculiar brand of ‘white’ nationalism.
About Holocaust denial, I suggest that the reader go directly to this link http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
This is how the dialogue contained therein started: A certain Wayne Harris emailed Taylor asking him the simple question: I applaud your valiant defense of white civilization. However the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement.Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not? Taylor’s single line reply to Wayne Harris: I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked.
To anyone who is not extremely obtuse, Harris wishes to elicit Taylor’s opinion on whether or not the Nazis committed large-scale genocide against the Jews. Taylor consciously evades the purport of the question and answers in a way that the exact number of victims is all Mr Harris was interested in. If Taylor truly were a Holocaust believer he would have qualified his answer to make clear his belief in a major genocide.
Later on, Taylor, out of fear of endangering what he believes to be his ‘mainstream’ appeal changes his tune and issues that ridiculous statement on the Holocaust that is now on Amren.
Taylor – be a man and stick to your guns. Your craven attitude in the face of disapprobation from people of whose opinions should mean absolutely nothing to a true WN, is truly disgusting.
Taylor now goes even further in disavowing praise from David Duke. If David Duke, as America’s foremost WN, has anything to say about Taylor, surely it should be included in the article. Duke is famous to the same extent that Francis is obscure– and has contributed far more to WN causes for far longer than both Francis and Taylor put together. Again Taylor’s ignoble side is amply revealed by the contemptible way he treats Dr Duke.
It will of course be very difficult to verify Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisda in the way that Wikipedia requires. Obviously not many major media outlets will be interested in what Taylor calls his interracial amours.
However let me repeat here: all the allegations made with respect to Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisada are one hundred percent true. These allegations are most certainly no invention of mine. I have seen evidence that leaves not a smidgen of doubt in my mind that what was alleged is true. And more importantly Taylor knows that the allegations are one hundred percent true. Answer this Taylor: why were you so obviously ‘rattled’ when questioned on this several months ago? And you were certainly doing more on your latest Japanese trip than just counting potholes –were you not?
However I will now desist from posting these allegations– at least until they can be verified in a way that meets Wikipedia’s requirements.
Alabamawhiteman 14:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. Yet more mind-reading nonsense from "Alabamawhiteman" about the Holocaust. And I ask for the third time: What evidence of Akisada have you seen or heard? Can't answer that question, can you? You are clearly prepared to believe utter nonsense out of pure hostility to me. It is because of credulous fanatics like you that any article about me should be protected from vandalism. If the last three letters in your tag mean anything at all, you will be apologizing to me some day.
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
One month later and no reply from Alabamawhiteman. I believe you Americans use the maxim "put up or shut up", I think that this applies here. -- Delos 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As Taylor pointed out, there is no source for him claiming to be a "white separatist". The source provided does not use the phrase. It needs to be removed, at least to the extent that it says it to be a self-identification, especially since he is posting here and claims not to self-identity as such. Bamafader 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. I quite agree, and thank you for bringing up this point. I have pointed out a number of other errors in the section called "Taylor Agrees." I would very much appreciate it if those changes could be made.
It's been four months. P4k ( talk) 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that this article is unlocked, people are free to say any insubstantiated thing they like about me: That I have "praised" David Duke as a man of "strong views," that I associate with convicted kiddie porn afficionados, that I am likely to have had interracial sex.
This is exactly what I feard would happen if the article was unlocked.
Again, I request that this article be removed from Wikipedia, inasmuch as it is impossible for it be balanced or dispassionate. If not removed, it should be carefully edited by a Wikipedia staffer and then locked again.
It has become nothing but a playground for people who wish to attack me.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback's judgements are usually fair, but in this case I think he makes several mistakes. The passage I wrote about Hitler and Ghandi cannot be fairly described as "deriding" the British. I mention Hitler's advice and the fact that the British did not take it. I have never stated, and do not think, that the British should have *taken* Hitler's advice and shot Ghandi.
I have no objection to the quotation from me about Foo Man Chu and Whoopi Goldberg, which is accurate. However, that quotation is set up to be criticism by me of the *children* of interracial couples, as if I were somehow blaming the children. I do not blame the children nor their parents, for that matter. I am expressing my own preference, with the expectation that it is probably shared by my readers. As Mr. Beback also knows, this quotation from me has routinely been used to introduce allegations that I engage in interracial sex.
As for my views on the Holocaust, I agree entirely with the person below, who cannot see why such an entry is included in this article. I wrote one, private line on the subject, which has been twisted into something I certainly did not mean, and it now has a prominent place in the article. This is wholly inappropriate.
Finally, if my views on Jews are considererd important, as I have said many times before, the following passage should be included: Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [16]
I suspect that article, now that it has been unlocked, will again become a vehicle for personal attacks against me.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read and re-read this article, I cannot understand why this section of the Jared Taylor biography even exists for several important policy-related reasons.
First, there is the policy issue of undue weight. It would be understandable that this section existed if Jared Taylor is known for his anti-Semitism or (more importantly) finds himself being the subject of journalists who cover his alleged Holocaust denial. After all, Wikipedia is a terciary source that relies on publicly verifiable secondary sources that document subjects in a NPOV fashion. The fact is, after checking Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, Google News, and JSTOR I cannot find a single article in a reliable mainstream source that associates him with Holocaust denial. Furthermore, even the Anti-Defamation League does not accuse Taylor of such things. Right away, the alarm bells should start to sound based on those two facts and we should start scrutinizing a little more carefully what is and is not relevant for this biography.
I am not suggesting that inconvenient facts and criticisms found in reliable sources cannot be included in this article. I simply have not found them yet. As the section is written now, I think what we have is a clear violation of Wikipedia's undue weight policy in a living person's biography.
Second, speaking of biographies, there is the all-important policy points for writing biographies of living persons. Specifically, we are told to "do no harm." Is it harmful to create an entire section on Taylor's alleged "Holocaust denial" based on one journalist's question and Taylor's one-line response? To be honest, I think it is. Best regards, J Readings ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In April 2007, a correspondent asked Taylor, "the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement. Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?" Taylor's one line reply: "I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked." Subsequent to this, Lawrence Auster learned of Taylor's statement on the issue and a heated Internet debate ensued. Taylor further posted on the Internet that he did not have an opinion on the six million figure, in the same way that he did not know how many people died in the Armenian massacres or how many American soldiers died during World War II. Auster (who has spoken at an American Renaissance conference sponsored by Taylor) and his supporters argued that such a stance was akin to Holocaust denial, and that this was not surprising given Taylor's close and longstanding friendship with Mark Weber, editor of the Holocaust-denial publication Journal of Historical Review and former editor of the neo-Nazi publication National Vanguard. [17]
American Renaissance posted a response on the matter, with Taylor stating, "I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million", and "to imply that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious." [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Readings ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why this section exists. Let's look at it carefully:
In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg."[12]
Okay, fair enough. Taylor has made this statement in numerous speeches and writings. (By the way, "Fu Manchu" was originally misspelled and I had to fix it).
On March 8, 2007, Taylor was asked by a Canadian journalist whether he had ever been involved in an interracial relationship. Peter Duffy of the Halifax Chronicle Herald described Taylor's reaction: "That was the only time I saw you rattled; when that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled." Taylor said he was merely "annoyed", because he felt that questions about his personal life were beyond the pale.[13]
Okay, why is this here? Mainly it's the opinion of a Canadian Journalist, not Taylor's. This has nothing to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage." What is the significance of it? Maybe if it was a close friend of Taylor's who said "That was the only time I saw you rattled," it might mean something, but not some journalist who saw him what? Maybe one or two times? Besides, I fail to see what this has to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage."
Taylor has praised the "high average level of attractiveness" of Japanese women, saying few resemble the "waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races."[14]
This is and out and out misstatement. If you will take the trouble to look at the original quote, you'll see that Taylor, in making the "waddling colossi" statement, was talking about the Japanese people *in general,* not Japanese women in particular, contrary to what that paragraph claimed. So that quotation is just plain misleading. And again, I don't understand why this is here. What does this have to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage?" The only thing I can figure is it's trying to imply something. I don't think innuendo has any place in an encyclopedia. Am I wrong?
I tried to insert some actual, substantial quotes from Taylor that might have something to do with this subject and give an actual feel for Taylor's beliefs and they were promptly deleted with the rationale that they were just "a plug for Taylor's views" Uh, excuse me, but is this not supposed to be a section on Taylor's views? I don't understand why innuendo is allowed but actual quotes from Taylor are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reinserting superfluous passages, as well as NPOV language that I removed. Please read the preceding talk subheading. User:TimMagic asked, "Okay, why is this here?" Let me answer his question. Most of the section constituted filler, in order to justify having a separate section. The real reason for the separate section was to libel the subject.
Let's break it down: "Taylor praised the 'high average level of attractiveness' of Japanese women..." He did nothing of the sort. He wrote, "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."
So, the passage contained a fake "quote." The original passage follows, in greater context, so as to dispel any doubt that I might have misrepresented Taylor's words.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/01/in_praise_of_ho.php
"People
"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, with the same black hair, dark eyes, and olive skin. But there is a different and more pleasant homogeneity that goes beyond racial traits. Almost no Japanese are overweight, for example, and the occasional fatty is nothing like the waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races.
"Japanese also dress much better than Americans. There is a stylishness about them that seems to recoil from the baggy-shorts-and-T-shirt regimen common in America. If you see someone dressed like a bum, it is probably an American.
"Even in uniform, American police officers or TSA baggage screeners may be fat or sloppy-looking. Blacks and Hispanics, especially, often show a slouching kind of contempt for their jobs. Japanese bustling about in their trim uniforms almost never give this impression.
"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.
"At the same time, Japanese have a spirit of service and attentiveness that is rare in Americans. As in any country, levels of service vary with the price and elegance of the establishment, but Japanese almost never treat each other with the obvious indifference common in America. Japanese waiters or sales personnel hurry to help you, welcome you with smiles, and apologize for any inconvenience. Americans are surprised to find there is no tipping in Japan. Japanese rush to serve you because that is their job. In a way, they have no choice; Japanese consumers expect first-rate service, and will not patronize a store or restaurant that doesn’t give it."
Next, the passage about Taylor being "rattled."
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/on_the_menu_opp.php#
"HE ORDERS the fish and chips; I settle for a cup of coffee.
"The waitress leaves with our order and Jared Taylor leans back, catching his breath.
"'The media scrum gave you a pretty rough time back there,' I remark.
"He shrugs and smiles.
“'That was the only time I saw you rattled,” I press him. 'When that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled.'
“'I was annoyed,' he corrects. 'There are certain things I wouldn’t talk about, like my eating habits and my bowel habits.'”
The passage in the WP article had been cleaned up, so as to accurately represent the original article, but the question remains: What on earth is such a passage doing within a WP article? How is it encyclopedic? The answers are, in reverse order: It is not in the least encyclopedic, and the only reason it and the aforementioned passage were in the section, was as lead-ins to the baseless libel which was inserted in the article, complete with a fake link, as part of a vendetta. Remove the libel, and there is no reason for the rest, particularly the fraudulent "quote" about the supposed attractiveness of Japanese women. (I am not speaking for myself here. When I was single, I found many Japanese women very attractive, but any opinions I might once have had as to the beauty of women to whom I am not married have since been surgically removed.)
WP has had enough negative publicity, don'cha think? We don't need another Seigenthaler scandal. 24.90.201.232 ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the sentence is written. I believe the original sentence is not about inter racial marriage and makes Taylor look like a pervert. I changed it so the big idea of the piece is shown. Sorry for my bad english.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jared Taylor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The article about Jared Taylor includes the following sentence:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >> This sentence should not be included for two reasons, the most obvious being that Potok's references to me (this is Jared Taylor writing) are completely unsourced. Given that virtually everything I have ever written about race is on the Internet it would be easy to add hyperlinks to the passages Potok caims to be citing. Why has he not done that? I, myself, have no idea to what passages he is referring. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, "encyclopedic content must be verified." Where'es the verification? Assuming that I actually used the words "dissipated" or "pathological" in connection with blacks, the reader has no idea what I meant. Was I writing about a particular black person, some black people, all black people? The implication is that I think all blacks are "deviant" or "dissipated," which I most certainly do not. For these reasons, therefore, this sentence should be removed permanently from the article about me. The charges it makes are unsourced, and what it implies about my views of blacks is wrong and deceptive. 68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
Tuppertwo Tuppertwo ( talk) 01:16, 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.
Tuppertwo Tuppertwo ( talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
There used to be a picture of Jared Taylor. Why was is removed? 217.236.201.18 ( talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fixed (I think) 129.120.177.8 ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Re [7]. 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:
Don't use "Wikipedia is not censored" as an excuse. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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 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'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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Jared Taylor is a hard-core, right wing, bigoted, disgusting white supremacist and it really feels like this write-up glosses over that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.67.254 ( talk) 17:38, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a little biased to have all those references to leftist "anti-racist" sites? One ought to suffice.
The first link isn't really worth anyone's time to read. It's just trying to demonise Taylor by associating him with figures it claims are 'neo-fascist' despite the fact that they explicity say they aren't (See British National Party/ Nick Griffin). This article from a "progressive" website is the very definition of bias. It's not information, it's defamation. - The boy that picked flowers and made people laugh
I just wanted to note that while I personally disagree with many of the decidedly unrealistic and silly conclusions Taylor reaches (separation of the races within America, etc.) and find him to be a tad obnoxious at times, if you read his information at no point does he advocate or argue the supremacy of whites. Taylor is very comfortable in acknowledging that Ashkenazi Jews (whom he considers white for all intents and purposes) and north Asians score higher on IQ tests than Anglo whites. Therefore, trying to claim Jared Taylor is a white supremacist is both unproductive and demonstrably untrue. Just my two cents. 65.92.53.132 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Pepe
The Color of Crime cites statistics provided by the US Depatment of Justice and state correctional authorities; Jared Taylor isn't simply making up his own statistics nor is he distorting the provided statistics.
For instance, current statistics show that blacks are represented are imprisioned at a rate of around 1100 per 100,000 as compared to whites at less than 200 per 100,000 (approximately 180). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime
http://www.isteve.com/Crime_Imprisonment_Rates_by_Race.htm
http://www.isteve.com/crime_imprisonment_data_by_state_by_race.htm
I think this ariticle would be improved by removing the last paragraph with the quotes by Mark Potok. It's enough to say that he has critics and to name those critics, but you don't need direct quotes from his critics especially with none from Taylor himself. - James S. 09:26, 09 March 2006 (PST)
Jared Taylor has personally told me that he is more of a paleolibertarian than anything else. Now since that is anecdotal you may not believe me. But, ee has written for the Last Ditch, which is libertarian, and wrote in praise of Democracy the God that Failed on two sites(one of which is his own) while praising the Mises Institute in the VDare column. The links are here and here http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ http://www.amren.com/0201issue/0201issue.html#article2 and http://www.vdare.com/taylor/hoppe.htm I don't see how you can use the term white nationalist while using the term paleolibertarian considering white nationalism can be used to mean a lot of different things while paleolibertarian may mean something that is not usually nationalistic. That's why I changed his opening sentence from paleoconservative, white nationalist to paleolibertarian, racalist. Why is that wrong? I will go ahead and do it and have someone tell me why I am wrong if that comes up
Considering those sources are reliable since they are all from his own mouth I believe they should not be omitted.
Ok if that is the case, then the previous paleoconservative, white nationalist label was under that category and nobody here protested even though there was not evidence constituting for that other than his vdare articles opposed to citizenism. If someone wanted to take down the current label and put nothing in its place, then that would be fine with me. But if someone is going to put what was previous to it, then I will have to protest.
I have restored “White Nationalist” to the lead. Doing an advanced Google search of Amren brings up multiple citable sources; however, the one I choose to use gives a broader range of Taylor’s views on the subject than any specific example from Amren. Clearly the readers and writers of Amren see themselves as Paoloconservative, as per a google search, but in searching Amren I could not find anything to directly tie that label to Taylor, nor could I find anything of him or his readers embracing the label paleolibertarian. Brimba 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a reader of Amren and know other readers from amren. There are many who do not seem themselves paleoconservatives. I ran an advanced google search with paleolibertarian and found multiple citable sources. On the Amren site, there is nothing that says white nationalism. So I am taking it off
Yeah I never said the search under white nationalist did not have more but that still doesn't refute my point of pointing out that on the American Renaissance site it does not mention white nationalism. It mentions race and being pro-European/White.
From Wikipedia, "Nationalism is a political ideology[1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles." Now where does Taylor say anything like this that the White race takes precedence over any social or political principle? That is what is implied by White nationalism.
This sentence in the article should be deleted:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>
According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," but Potok provides no sources for these claims.
Assuming that I actually used these words in some discussion of blacks (this is Jared Taylor writing), it is impossible to know whether I was writing about one black, some blacks, or all blacks. The implicaiton, of course, is that I think all blacks are "pathological," "deviant," etc., which is something I have never thought, never said, and never written.
The sentence should therefore be removed permanently because it is unsourced and therefore unverifiable, and because it is a deliberate distortion of my views.
68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not denying that Mark Potok has written the sentence included in this article. I think it is a silly distortion of my writing, but if it is to remain in the article, I would appreciate it if the following reply from me could be included:
<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."
I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I have noted above that I think a qotation from Mark Potok is an unfair distortion. In this connection, Mr. Beback wrote:
<< It is verifiable that Potok quotes Taylor as saying those things.[4] If Taylor wants to publish as denial we can print that too. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)>>
Therefore I would be grateful if my reply to Mr. Potok, indicated above and repeated below, could be added to the article:
<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."
I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >>
Jared Taylor
On May 16, 2007, I sent the following message to Wikipedia staff, which remained unaswered two weeks later:
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am the subject of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor and would like to request several corrections and clarifications.
(1) The following sentence is incorrect:
<< Taylor also sits on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a director of the National Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. >>
At one time it was accurate, but I am no longer on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly nor am I any longer a director of the National Policy Institute.
(2) The following sentence is also incorrect:
<< New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which singles out African Americans and Hispanics as the chief cause of crime in America. >>
Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians, but they are *not* the chief cause(s) of crime, because they are minorities of 12 percent and 13 percent respectively. Because whites are still a majority of the American population, they account for a considerable amount of crime even though they commit crime at lower rates than blacks or Hispanics. The following sentence would be accurate:
“New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which uses government crime statistics to show that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians.”
(3) The following sentence is a silly distortion of my views:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>
This string of out-of-context adjectives is not serious or legitimate criticism. Mr. Potok presumably bases part of his criticism on the following paragraph of which I am the author:
"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—the undisputed equals of whites—in such an abject state."
I think it is important for readers to know in what context I used the words “crime-prone” and “dissipated.” As for “pathological” and “deviant,” I can find no instance in my own work of having described blacks – either individually or as a group – as “pathological” or “deviant.” Perhaps Mr. Potok made this up, in which case the “quotation” is, in part, false.
I would suggest that Mr. Potok’s sentence of criticism of removed. Mr. Potok can express his opinions about me all he wants, but it is not fair to pass off his spurious and out-of-context “quotations” from my own work as a legitimate representation of what I think.
(4) The following sentence and paragraph are extremely misleading:
<< Right-wing Jewish critics have described elliptical statements by Taylor concerning the Holocaust as indicating a latent anti-Semitism. >>
There is no sense in which I am “latently anti-Semitic” or a Holocaust denier. I have had Jewish collaborators in every aspect of my political work. The charge of Holocaust denial is easily shown to be false. In response to a question as to whether the Nazi genocide resulted on the death of six million Jews, I replied, simply, that I had not looked into it. I meant, of course, the figure of six million, which is the only aspect of that question about which I would expect there to be debate.
I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.
I strongly urge that this entire section be taken out.
I realize you have a lot of work to do, but inaccuracies, distortions, and malicious charges are hurtful. I would appreciate your making these corrections at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours, Jared Taylor
I would strongly suggest that Mr. Taylor - who is clearly not a gentleman - be introduced to our worthy readers immediately - that is, in the opening sentence - as a racist (or racialist if you will - I find the distinction between the two specious and tiresome...) because it is chiefly for that aspect of his personality that his work has received the morsel of attention that allows him to be regarded as a public figure. Obnoxious and woefully misguided as he appears to be, Mr. Taylor seems to make an effort to think clearly at most times and as far as I am aware does not contend with the application of the label 'racist' to his person. In addition to all that has been said about leftist biases against Mr. Taylor: The man is not exactly a proponent of peace and harmony in the world. His paradigm sets out to promote strife and discord among the peoples of this tiny planet and as such is less than conducive to the progress of mankind into an ethically sound state of coexistence. The man must be characterised as what he is: a marplot, a vicious attacker of the peace and an intellectual arsonist. There is no doubt that Jared Taylor is a potentially very dangerous man. Somebody whose sole public existence is based on polarisation and wilful characterisation of others can only be characterised himself by means of polarisation.
Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the policy page above. I understand your concerns. I still think, however, that the term 'racist' (or' racialist') as denoting someone whose persona is overwhelmingly characterised by a mindset that categorises people according to their ethnic background is not necessarily slanderous. I understand its problematic nature, however, and concede that it should, for that reason, be avoided as a label. I would, lastly, be interested to know if Mr. Taylor himself would object to being labelled a racist/racialist.
Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Taylor is a racist on the basis of the definition of racism. His ideas on immigration are not part of the equation. Disregarding the troll, however, Mr. Beback: thank you for clarifying. 'Racialist' would be the safe and encyclopedic option. I have decided to leave the matter of changing the beginning of the article to somebody more experienced than myself. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I could at this point, dear 82.100.61.114, enter into a worthwhile discussion with you about structural violence. But alas, your primary objective seems to be the engagement in a subform of conventional heckling. And as you seem woefully reluctant to endow yourself with a name I find myself entirely unable to react to any of your statements forthwith. Oh, and as for what you would doubtless refer to as 'braininess', I believe the correct phrase in English would have been: "You should also leave commenting 'ON' this article to someone...". Forgive me if this is an unjust correction considering your own background, but here in England that is how we would put it. Good Bye for good and sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to Will Beback for the changes he made. I would add that the National Policy Institute web page no longer lists me as a director, so the article's reference to that position should be in the past tense.
I note that in a comment dated June 7, someone calling himself Ignacio Bibcraft urged Wikipedia to refer to me as a "racist," and I appreciate Mr. Beback's resistance to doing so. Mr. Beback expressed some curiosity as to how I might refer to myself.
First, I have always rejected the term "racist." Whatever the word means -- and definitions are so many and fluid I'm not sure anyone knows -- it implies some kind of moral inferiority. This I completely deny. My views on race are the result of many years of reflection and study. I consider them not only healthy and moral, but entirely in accord with what we know of history and human nature.
So what do I call myself?
The article says I have called myself a "racialist" and a "white separatist," but only the former is true. I have used the term "racialist" but do not recall ever calling myself a "white separatist." One would search the pages of my publication, American Renaissance, in vain for any such self-description. It is a mistake (or at the very least long out of date) and should be removed from the article.
Although I have used the term "racialist," I am not satisfied with it, partly because I agree with Mr. Bibcraft: the distinction between "racist" and "racialist" is not clear. Neither word has a useful definition. I have therefore not called myself a "racialist" for many years.
For some time, I have instead described myself as a race realist. A Google search of "Jared Taylor" and "race realist" will result in many pages of hits. This term is admittedly unfamiliar to most people, so what does it mean? Put concisely, it means recognizing at least the following: (1) That race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. (2) That although essentially all ranges of abilities are found in people of different races, there are important traits -- intelligence is the best studied -- in which there are racial differences in average ability. The evidence is overwhelming that these differences are at least partly genetic in origin.
I would add that my basic thinking about race has not changed a great deal since 1990, when I first began publishing American Renaissance. I might have forestalled confusion if I had hit upon the term "race realist" from the outset. In any case, it is the most accurate term with which to describe both me and my work.
Jared Taylor 219.127.127.156 07:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking part in this discussion, Mr. Taylor. I greatly appreciate your clarification on what one should call you. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that 'racist' is not really a pejorative term. Of course most of us would hate to be called racists because it implies a deeply offensive ideology. Proponents of this ideology, however, generally seem to be okay with it. Mr. Taylor, it appears, is unhappy with both 'racist' and 'racialist' and suggests that 'race realist' would be the term to apply. (And yes, of course Wikipedia is not in the business of describing people as they wish to be described, but then, after all, that's how this whole discussion started. I was asked to read the article on biographies of living persons and refrain from calling Taylor a racist. Now Taylor, our living person, has added his two cents to this discussion, which appears to be exactly the point of this whole 'living persons' - thing, and whatever we think of him, his involvement in this discussion is commendable.) The term 'race-realist', however, is highly problematic in two respects. Firstly, it is little known and does not appear to be 'legal tender' in most academic circles. Secondly and most importantly, however, the term 'race realist' is subjective and aggrandising in its suggestion that to agree with an ideology such as the one propagated by Mr. Taylor is to be 'realistic' while taking the opposite view would most likely be 'unrealistic' or perhaps romantic. This taken into consideration I agree with Mr. Beback. Describe as racialist and follow up with him having been called racist. My reservations, however, remain. I think the difference between racist and racialist is murky at best, and neither is, coolheadedly, to be understood as being pejorative. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone now claims I have had “dalliances with Japanese women” and that “evidence” has “surfaced” that I have a girlfriend named Yumi Akisada. I have never had a “dalliance with a Japanese woman,” and have never heard of Yumi Akisada. If such a person exists, I’m sure she will be astonished to read this nonsense.
I would have thought my sex life was of no interest to anyone, and replied in that vein when asked about it by a Canadian television reporter. I see, however, that people are prepared to believe all kinds of unsubstantiated rubbish. To anyone who claims I have had sexual relations with non-whites: Produce the evidence.
These charges are false and should be removed.
In fact there is incontrovertible evidence supporting the allegations of a relationship involving Mr Taylor and Yumi Akisada. Details will be available within two to three weeks (by mid July 07).
I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.
False charges that can be clearly demonstrated as such have no place in a Wikipedia biography.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Footnote number 11, used as a source on this suggestion that Mr. Taylor has been involved with a relationship with a Japanese, does not work. I would be in favour of removing the paragraph about this, since there does not seem to be any reliable evidence to support the assertions it contains.
Eeaee
10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes... Sensational and exciting as it may be to attribute 'interracial relations' to Mr. Taylor - the claim does seem unsubstantiated. Footnote 11 links to a page that currently contains no information about Taylor whatsoever. I'm going to look into the Herald and rectify the link if possible. Otherwise I will delete it altogether. In any case, the wording of the associated section would have to be modified. It is highly detrimental to Wikipedia's standards to include unsubstantiated claims and back them up with a single dead link. I would implore all of us to put the work in and search for reliable sources for these allegations in order to modify the article accordingly. Until then I suggest we remove the section altogether. It really doesn't help.
Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that others have recognized that these charges are false, please mitigate the damages by removing this section promptly.
Also, if the false charges of Holocaust denial are not removed, at the very least please insert my refutation.
Thank you.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mr. Taylor: the above statements do not mean exactly that we recognise the false nature of the allegations, but simply that we cannot produce the evidence. Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The dispute about Mr. Taylor's views on the Holocaust was (I believe) conducted here:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
Mr. Taylor seems to make it quite clear that the Holocaust did take place, by writing:
"The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews."
clearly indicating the ethnic/religious persecution that the Jews suffered, as well as the massive nature of this persecution. It is misleading thus to say in the article that "he [Mr. Taylor] did not have an opinion on the six million figure" without referring to the rest of Mr. Taylors comments.
The article has not charged Mr Taylor with Holocaust denial. It simply states that some Jewish Palaeoconservatives have argued that Mr Taylor's vague statements on subject, could imply a sympathy towards the views of those such as Mark Weber, an avowed antisemite and an unregenerate Holocaust denier. So it is reasonable to leave this paragraph in unchanged.
As for the issue of the supposed relationship with a Japanese, I cannot find any other document referring to this apart from the wikipedia page. As well as being pretty puerile for an encyclopedia article, if it remains unverified, it should be removed. At the moment there is nothing to suggest it is anything more than fiction written directly into Wikipedia. Eeaee 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And as such I have removed said section entirely. Whoever fancies doing so may revert it once the supporting evidence has been produced along with a host of reliable, live links. Bibcraft 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Bibcraft. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry... Bibcraft 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Bibcraft has noted that the allegations about my inter-racial amours are utterly unsourced and should not appear in the article. He has also acknowledged that I have written: "The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews." He therefore appears to agree that accusations of Holocaust denial are unfounded. (I have also stated that my only doubt about the figure of six million victims is that I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally accepted estimates – four to six million – are the most accurate.)
Charges of interracial sex and Holocaust denial nevertheless keep appearing, in what is beginning to approach the level of vandalism. I understand Wikipedia can suspend the access privileges of vandals, and I request that this be done.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The "better sourced" material links to an article in the American Renaissance news archive. A journalist tells me he thought I was "rattled" when asked about interracial relations. He adds, accurately, that I corrected him, saying I was "annoyed" (that professional journalists would sink so low as to ask about my sex life.) That is as far as the story goes. There is nothing in it to suggest "loss of composure," or an "angry response." Again, this kind of irresponsible "editing" amounts to vandalism.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 04:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to label Jared Taylor's position on interracial relationships "hypocrisy" unless the editors can find some material proving so. With that being the case, charges of "hypocrisy" should be removed. Paleoconservativeone 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The American Renaissance link carrying Jared Taylor's own official statement regarding the Holocaust, and about his email exchange in the matter made public, seems entirely relevant to this discussion. It's removal is not warranted. Paleoconservativeone 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This vandalism is becoming extremely tiresome. There is once again an allegation about my “intimate relationship” with someone I have never heard of. What is the source cited? This discussion page! Whoever is making these unfounded allegations should be denied access to Wikipedia.
There is considerably more of this article that is factually wrong, but the vandals appear determined to keep it that way. I note especially that someone keeps arguing that I “question the extent of the Holocaust.” I have said only that I do not have the specialized historical knowledge to judge which of several estimates of the death toll is most accurate. My own explanation has been repeatedly removed from this article. This is yet more vandalism, and I would like to know what the people who run Wikipedia plan to do about it.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Jared; allegations were in fact made, and the article now states that these allegation were largely groundless. However the fact remains that allegations were made and these allegations were denied by you. Having this in Wikipedia is entirely appropriate.
I disagree that these charges should be part of the article. It is true that allegations have been made, but with no basis or corroboration. Someone promised "incontrovertible evidence," which has, of course, not been produced. If someone accuses me -- without any evidence -- of wife-beating or child molestation or racketeering, are these charges to become legitimate parts of this article as well?
Wikipedia's credibility is not served by repeating charges for which there is not a shred of evidence.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Alabamawhiteman to Mr Taylor: firstly I have not touched the section about the Halifax incident. The allegation of "repeated harassment" is definitely not of my doing. About Holocaust 'denial' it is obvious, to anyone who has read the original debate on "inverted world", that you doubt the official version of the 'Holocaust' story - justifiably so in my opinion. Come on Mr Taylor - be honest. About Ms Akisada - I know, many others know and most of all you yourself know that the allegations made are one hundred percent true. The healthiest option for both yourself and more importantly our movement, would be to come clean on this aspect of your life and forswear forever more what were justifiably called non-white 'dalliances.'
To Alabamawhiteman: Is there any evidence to suggest Mr. Taylor has had a relationship with Ms. Akisada, or even that Ms. Akisada actually exists? If there is not, it should not be in Wikipedia. Read
WP:VERIFY and reconsider whether this allegation should remain in this article.
Eeaee
16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the lady's email: yumi.akisada@gmail.com As a white man and a white nationalist, I am angered by the appalling way Jared has treated this woman. He is a spineless creep who has dishonored his wife, family and race.
Look, "Alabamawhiteman," you have not produced a shred of evidence that this women even exists, much less that I have ever met her. Not a shred. Did you invent this nonsense yourself, or did you hear it from someone else? If the latter, from whom did you hear it, and what was the aleged evidence? You should be ashamed of yourself for circulating this utterly groundless charge.
I stand behind the statement on the Holocaust that is on the AR web page. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Jared, I first heard rumors of your interracial trysts back in September last year. Personally I believe that Alabamawhiteman may well be on to something here. And yes the name Akisada has cropped up occasionally. However the allegations are not fully substantiated- so for now they do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Later on the situation may change. G Bathurst
To Mr. Bathurst: These allegations are not "fully substantiated." They are not substantiated at all. No one has produced *anything* that could be remotedly considered evidence, and this is because there is none to be produced. The name Akisada has cropped up, so far as I know, only in Wikipedia. At any rate, I appreciate your insistance that these charges not be included in the article, and I can assure you they will never be "substantiated." Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this section, I think, 3 or 4 times now because it violates WP policy on living persons:
The two items have nothing to do with each other. Putting them together this way to draw a conclusion is original research. Besides that it is an invasion of his privacy to talk about his possible dating habits. That has nothing to do with his notability. The only people who think it is notable seem to be those who think that he should be even more racist than he is. (p.s. Both Tayor "making clear his feelings" and the reporter's opinion about him being "rattled" are mind reading.) Steve Dufour 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion as an attack article. Taylor is notable, although a fairly minor figure. However, WP could get along without an article on him since this one seems to exist mainly for the purpose of attacking him. The attacks come, ironically enough, from people who are unhappy that he is not as racist as they think he should be. Steve Dufour 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
From Jared Taylor: It would suit me fine to delete this article entirely for the reasons Mr. Dufour proposes. As an alternative, I understand that Wikipedia can lock articles. What about the possibility of including only facts about me that are undisputed -- background, books written, positions held -- and then locking it? I would consider it a blessing if the article were either eliminated or limited to the barest of facts. There are still, by the way, a number of assertions in the article that are not at all supported by the sources cited.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Mstrrce 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Jared: I don't think Wikipedia's job is to write biographical articles that satisfy only the wishes of the subject of the article. Of course you would be happy for the article to just present the bare-bone facts about yourself and your organization. But then the article would not be a biography befitting on encyclopedia- but rather just a portal into Amren and free advertising for your brand of 'white' nationalism. I agree that unsubstantiated rumors such as those concerning your interracial liasons have no place in a Wikipedia article - regardless of their actual verity.
However your views on miscegenation, your answer to a television journalist who questioned you on this matter are highly topical. And the description of yourself being 'rattled' comes from an impeccable source - your own website. The issue of miscegenation is perhaps the centrepiece issue of White Nationalism. Surely including your own views on this issue is completely appropriate. Thus I have restored this section to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrrce ( talk • contribs)
I've protected the page so that the dispute can be settled here. Please remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. I suggest that folks propose drafts of what they'd like the section to cover. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here.
First, I’d like to thank Will Beback for locking the article in its present state, thus keeping out the utterly unsubstantiated allegations about my amours.
This version is an improvement over many others. However, even if editors agree on what should be in the article, if it is ever unlocked, it will be subject to vandalism and tendentious editing. I would far prefer that this article be deleted and kept deleted. It has already caused a lot more bother for you and for me than any article should.
In the meantime, I will examine a number of errors, both of fact and of emphasis. These are in sequential order, not order of importance. My most *important point* is No. (7), “Views on the Holocaust.”
(1) First Sentence
The current first sentence says: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>
No one really know what “racialist” means, so this sentence – although otherwise factually correct -- is not illuminating. The “source” given for this sentence never uses the word “racialist.” What are “racialist theories?” I would suggest the following:
<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who explores the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. >>
If that’s too bland, you could try:
<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of what he calls a “race-realist” perspective one the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>
(2) “Works and Views.” Current first sentence:
<<He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which among other things argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which hypothesizes that multiracialism in the United States is the cause of many of todays social ills;>>
Both book descriptions are wrong; whoever wrote them did not read the books. I wrote the book about Japan when I was still a liberal on race and certainly did not argue “the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race.” On the contrary, I criticized the Japanese quite sharply for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness, and warned that they are not a good model for Americans.
Paved With Good Intentions was not about “multiracialism” and drew no conclusions about it per se. It was an extended critique of “racism” as an explanation for black social failure. The following would be correct descriptions of these two books:
<< He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which argued that Japan is not a good social model for the United States and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which argues that racism is not a convincing explanation for black social failure;>>
(3) The two following sentences are completely unrelated.
<< Taylor insists that he espouses a doctrine of race realism. In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.[3]>>
The first sentence is true; the second is wrong. There was such an interview, but you will search the cited transcript in vain for any such statement by myself. It is pure invention. If, for some reason, you want to cite that interview, you could say <<In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Mexican government officials actually brag that Mexicans are “reconquering” the Southwest United States.>> That, at least, is something I actually said.
(4) “White separatist.” The article contains the following sentence. <<He has described himself as a "racialist" and a "white separatist".>>
In the past, I have described myself as a “racialist,” but I no longer do so for reasons outlined in this discussion page above (see “Thanks to Will Beback . . . . “). Although I have seen a number of web pages that describe me as a “self-described white separatist,” I have no recollection of ever calling myself that. You will certainly not find that self-description in any of my written work. I’d like to know who it is who claims to have *heard* me describe myself that way. I suspect I have never called myself that, and I think that description should be removed.
(5) Here is another very muddled passage. <<Taylor says he is not a white supremacist, whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others. He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent. [5]>>
The first sentence is correct. But having just defined “white supremacy” as the desire to rule over others, would I be likely to say that Asians should rule over whites (“Asian supremacy”)? Let’s look at the source cited for the second sentence. It is a journalist describing a conversation with me as follows: “He dismissed the ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ accusations as empty epithets. If anything, he says he is a yellow supremacist because he believes Asians are genetically the smartest race, then whites, then blacks.” Therefore the sentence in the Wiki article is a paraphrase of a journalist’s paraphrase of my conversation with him--which, by the way, says nothing about “advanced humans (in evolutionary terms).” This is very sloppy work.
Why can’t the article refer to something I have actually done or said rather than paraphrase a paraphrase? It is relevant to note that I consider blacks superior to whites in some respects. I suggest the following:
<<Taylor has published arguments supporting the view that backs have a genetic superiority to other races in certain athletic endeavors. [3] In response to charges of “white supremacy,” Taylor has written: “There is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ . . . . It is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.” [4]
(6) More muddled thinking in the following passage:
<<Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.">>
I did write those words attributed to me, and they are some of the harshest I have ever written about blacks. That is why “anti-racists” like to quote them, and that is why they appear in Wikipedia--not because they are characteristic or representative. However the sentence with which they are introduced makes no sense. The sentence refers to blacks living entirely on their own, not living in a “civilized” society, or one not of their own making. As the quotation says, I am talking about blacks “left entirely to their own devices.”
If you insist that out of millions of words I have written about race, these are ones that Wikipdia feels compelled to include, you should leave out the first sentence. It only adds confusion.
(7) “Views on the Holocaust”
This section should not be in the article. I have never written for publication about the Holocaust nor lectured on it. It is not an area of special study for me at all. I have spent 20 years writing and lecturing about race. To have a section called “Views on the Holocaust” that is almost as long as “Works and Views” is completely wrong. Why is this section even here?
It is here only because someone who already disagrees with me about something else, has taken a single sentence I wrote and twisted it maliciously to say that I have suspicious “views on the Holocaust.” Obviously, in my one-line reply, I was writing about the six million figure, not whether the Holocaust occurred. I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally proposed victim totals of 4 to 6 million is most accurate.
I gave a single-line reply in a private e-mail message to an unknown sender, and suddenly I’m accused of Holocaust denial. Quite absurd, really. *At least* this section now has my denunciation of this charge as absurd and malicious. Many version of the article have removed this important point.
<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [5] >>
My views in this respect are, in fact, *vastly* more significant than my one-line expression of ignorance about the Holocaust death total. You will find my views on Jewish participation sharply debated and attacked on many Internet pages.
(8) “Praise and Criticism”
To trot out David Duke as the first source of praise is obviously an attempt to discredit me, but when I checked the source, he seems to have said those words about me. At one point, someone had included praise of me from Samuel Francis, praise I far prefer to that of David Duke. Any reason why that can’t be included to balance David Duke? The text was:
<< The late paleoconservative, Samuel Francis, has written of Taylor, “What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers—not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed.” [6] >>
(9) More “sympathy to Holocaust denial.” The following is in the article:
<<Other critics have described Taylor as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and have accused him of sympathy to Holocaust denial.>>
The sum total of “sympathy to Holocaust denial” of which I am aware is my one-line e-mail message quoted above. This does not bear repeating here.
(10) External Links
The link to the Color of Crime (the second of the links) is to the 1998 version. The link should be to the latest version, and should therefore be: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime
(11) Possible Additions.
I realize, first of all, that editors of Wikipedia do not agree with my views on race. However, what is the purpose of this article: to caricature and discredit those views or to present an accurate, concise summary of them? Should direct quotations from me only be those selected by my critics? Surely not. If I have any reason to be in Wikipedia at all, it is *because* of the views I attempt to promote, *not* because of the way either critics or admirers characterize those views.
First, I repeat that my positions on Jews in general are extremely important, and include again the text from section (7) above:
<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [7] >>
Someone calling himself Boggs 1980 has written some good summaries of what I think.
What is wrong with including the following, which correctly quotes and summarizes my thinking?
<< Taylor compares racial solidarity to family loyalty: “Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin.” He adds that a preference for one’s own race in no way implies hostility to other races, just as the preference for one’s own children implies no hostility to the children of others. [8] He claims it is a dangerous double standard to encourage non-whites to show racial solidarity and to work openly for group interests while condemning whites who do the same thing. [9] >>
Or the following?
<< Taylor argues that race is not only a valid biological category [10] but is an inevitable part of individual and group identity. He points to consistent racial self segregation—not only in America but around the world—as evidence that race is one of the most basic human fault lines, and a frequent source of conflict. Taylor argues that a preference for people like oneself is natural and even healthy, and that attempts to encourage or force racial integration are misguided. He believes it is impossible to build a society in which race can be made not to matter. [11] >>
Again, these are central aspects of what is in fact a nuanced and carefully elaborated body of work. They deserve to be in an article that purports to be encyclopedic.
But again, I here express my preference that this article be eliminated completely – or, as I suggested earlier, limited only to the barest facts on publications and positions held – and then locked. If unlocked, there will only be more headaches.
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Eeaee 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If a person does not want to appear in Wikipedia, why should he have to? I think that is hardly the point. While Mr Taylor is a relatively minor figure in an overall national sense, within the white nationalist movement he is very well known (even though many true white nationalists would not consider him WN). The quality of any encyclopedia relates in part to its comprehensiveness. Wikipedia has articles on white nationalism, difference in intelligence among the races, and Holocaust revisionism. To have articles on these subjects without a reference to Jared Taylor will render the same articles in a sense incomplete. Deleting the article on Taylor would be be inconsistent with the fact that many people of far less renown than Taylor do rate a mention.
Personally I now undertake not to post details of Taylor's relationship with Ms Akisada, pending the allegations being verified by an independent and reliable source. I apologise to the editor (but certainly not to Taylor) for any inconvenience caused. However, to include Taylor's views on interracial relationships is I think entirely reasonable. After all, miscegenation is a pivotal issue to the WN movement. With respect to Holocaust revisionism I would ask readers here to peruse the relevant thread at inverted world. It should be obvious to most that Taylor initially signaled a disbelief in the Holocaust. It was only when he came under sustaied attack by Auster, Jobel and others that he pulled his head in and issued the statement on Amren stating belief in the Holocaust. Alabamawhiteman 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. "Alabamawhiteman" appears to be convinced I am a Holocaust disbeliever, despite my clear statements to the contrary. I believe Wikipedia has a word for this sort of thing: "mindreading."
As for the desirability of a Wikipedia article about me, it all depends on whether it is accurate and whether it can be protected from people like "Alabamawhiteman"--from whom I would still like an answer to an earlier question: Did you invent Akisada yourself or did someone else? If the latter, what was the "evidence" that has so firmly convinced you of her existence?
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Taylor is both prominent and controversial. Therefore, it would seem that he ought to have an entry in Wikipedia. However, it seems clear to me that his entry should be "bare bones" in terms of containing only incontrovertible facts, such as his background, books written, positions held, etc. There is no dirth of this information. Those seeking further information could be referred to one or both of his websites. The entry should then be locked. Gregraven 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Gregraven's suggestion is probably the best in terms of dealing with the entry for Jared Taylor. People are passionately either for or against him. His entry will be changed daily as a result, and over everything. A locked and neutral site which features only the basic facts about Jared Taylor, as Gregraven proposes, seems to be the only viable option for an entry about him. Otherwise, the article should be shut down completely and Jared Taylor should not be covered by Wikipedia. Paleoconservativeone 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not as a place for anyone to upload his CV– which is what some here seem to want for the benefit of Taylor. An encyclopedia biography should present a balanced, neutral point of view on the subject that includes the views of both admirers and critics. As Taylor is prominent and very well known figure in the racialist movement it behooves Wikipedia to include his biography. Not to do so would mean that the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia is somewhat negated. However even worse would be to have just an innocuous introduction to Taylor that would simply be a portal into his peculiar brand of ‘white’ nationalism.
About Holocaust denial, I suggest that the reader go directly to this link http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
This is how the dialogue contained therein started: A certain Wayne Harris emailed Taylor asking him the simple question: I applaud your valiant defense of white civilization. However the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement.Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not? Taylor’s single line reply to Wayne Harris: I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked.
To anyone who is not extremely obtuse, Harris wishes to elicit Taylor’s opinion on whether or not the Nazis committed large-scale genocide against the Jews. Taylor consciously evades the purport of the question and answers in a way that the exact number of victims is all Mr Harris was interested in. If Taylor truly were a Holocaust believer he would have qualified his answer to make clear his belief in a major genocide.
Later on, Taylor, out of fear of endangering what he believes to be his ‘mainstream’ appeal changes his tune and issues that ridiculous statement on the Holocaust that is now on Amren.
Taylor – be a man and stick to your guns. Your craven attitude in the face of disapprobation from people of whose opinions should mean absolutely nothing to a true WN, is truly disgusting.
Taylor now goes even further in disavowing praise from David Duke. If David Duke, as America’s foremost WN, has anything to say about Taylor, surely it should be included in the article. Duke is famous to the same extent that Francis is obscure– and has contributed far more to WN causes for far longer than both Francis and Taylor put together. Again Taylor’s ignoble side is amply revealed by the contemptible way he treats Dr Duke.
It will of course be very difficult to verify Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisda in the way that Wikipedia requires. Obviously not many major media outlets will be interested in what Taylor calls his interracial amours.
However let me repeat here: all the allegations made with respect to Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisada are one hundred percent true. These allegations are most certainly no invention of mine. I have seen evidence that leaves not a smidgen of doubt in my mind that what was alleged is true. And more importantly Taylor knows that the allegations are one hundred percent true. Answer this Taylor: why were you so obviously ‘rattled’ when questioned on this several months ago? And you were certainly doing more on your latest Japanese trip than just counting potholes –were you not?
However I will now desist from posting these allegations– at least until they can be verified in a way that meets Wikipedia’s requirements.
Alabamawhiteman 14:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. Yet more mind-reading nonsense from "Alabamawhiteman" about the Holocaust. And I ask for the third time: What evidence of Akisada have you seen or heard? Can't answer that question, can you? You are clearly prepared to believe utter nonsense out of pure hostility to me. It is because of credulous fanatics like you that any article about me should be protected from vandalism. If the last three letters in your tag mean anything at all, you will be apologizing to me some day.
Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
One month later and no reply from Alabamawhiteman. I believe you Americans use the maxim "put up or shut up", I think that this applies here. -- Delos 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As Taylor pointed out, there is no source for him claiming to be a "white separatist". The source provided does not use the phrase. It needs to be removed, at least to the extent that it says it to be a self-identification, especially since he is posting here and claims not to self-identity as such. Bamafader 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Jared Taylor here. I quite agree, and thank you for bringing up this point. I have pointed out a number of other errors in the section called "Taylor Agrees." I would very much appreciate it if those changes could be made.
It's been four months. P4k ( talk) 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that this article is unlocked, people are free to say any insubstantiated thing they like about me: That I have "praised" David Duke as a man of "strong views," that I associate with convicted kiddie porn afficionados, that I am likely to have had interracial sex.
This is exactly what I feard would happen if the article was unlocked.
Again, I request that this article be removed from Wikipedia, inasmuch as it is impossible for it be balanced or dispassionate. If not removed, it should be carefully edited by a Wikipedia staffer and then locked again.
It has become nothing but a playground for people who wish to attack me.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback's judgements are usually fair, but in this case I think he makes several mistakes. The passage I wrote about Hitler and Ghandi cannot be fairly described as "deriding" the British. I mention Hitler's advice and the fact that the British did not take it. I have never stated, and do not think, that the British should have *taken* Hitler's advice and shot Ghandi.
I have no objection to the quotation from me about Foo Man Chu and Whoopi Goldberg, which is accurate. However, that quotation is set up to be criticism by me of the *children* of interracial couples, as if I were somehow blaming the children. I do not blame the children nor their parents, for that matter. I am expressing my own preference, with the expectation that it is probably shared by my readers. As Mr. Beback also knows, this quotation from me has routinely been used to introduce allegations that I engage in interracial sex.
As for my views on the Holocaust, I agree entirely with the person below, who cannot see why such an entry is included in this article. I wrote one, private line on the subject, which has been twisted into something I certainly did not mean, and it now has a prominent place in the article. This is wholly inappropriate.
Finally, if my views on Jews are considererd important, as I have said many times before, the following passage should be included: Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” [16]
I suspect that article, now that it has been unlocked, will again become a vehicle for personal attacks against me.
Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read and re-read this article, I cannot understand why this section of the Jared Taylor biography even exists for several important policy-related reasons.
First, there is the policy issue of undue weight. It would be understandable that this section existed if Jared Taylor is known for his anti-Semitism or (more importantly) finds himself being the subject of journalists who cover his alleged Holocaust denial. After all, Wikipedia is a terciary source that relies on publicly verifiable secondary sources that document subjects in a NPOV fashion. The fact is, after checking Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, Google News, and JSTOR I cannot find a single article in a reliable mainstream source that associates him with Holocaust denial. Furthermore, even the Anti-Defamation League does not accuse Taylor of such things. Right away, the alarm bells should start to sound based on those two facts and we should start scrutinizing a little more carefully what is and is not relevant for this biography.
I am not suggesting that inconvenient facts and criticisms found in reliable sources cannot be included in this article. I simply have not found them yet. As the section is written now, I think what we have is a clear violation of Wikipedia's undue weight policy in a living person's biography.
Second, speaking of biographies, there is the all-important policy points for writing biographies of living persons. Specifically, we are told to "do no harm." Is it harmful to create an entire section on Taylor's alleged "Holocaust denial" based on one journalist's question and Taylor's one-line response? To be honest, I think it is. Best regards, J Readings ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In April 2007, a correspondent asked Taylor, "the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement. Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?" Taylor's one line reply: "I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked." Subsequent to this, Lawrence Auster learned of Taylor's statement on the issue and a heated Internet debate ensued. Taylor further posted on the Internet that he did not have an opinion on the six million figure, in the same way that he did not know how many people died in the Armenian massacres or how many American soldiers died during World War II. Auster (who has spoken at an American Renaissance conference sponsored by Taylor) and his supporters argued that such a stance was akin to Holocaust denial, and that this was not surprising given Taylor's close and longstanding friendship with Mark Weber, editor of the Holocaust-denial publication Journal of Historical Review and former editor of the neo-Nazi publication National Vanguard. [17]
American Renaissance posted a response on the matter, with Taylor stating, "I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million", and "to imply that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious." [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Readings ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why this section exists. Let's look at it carefully:
In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg."[12]
Okay, fair enough. Taylor has made this statement in numerous speeches and writings. (By the way, "Fu Manchu" was originally misspelled and I had to fix it).
On March 8, 2007, Taylor was asked by a Canadian journalist whether he had ever been involved in an interracial relationship. Peter Duffy of the Halifax Chronicle Herald described Taylor's reaction: "That was the only time I saw you rattled; when that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled." Taylor said he was merely "annoyed", because he felt that questions about his personal life were beyond the pale.[13]
Okay, why is this here? Mainly it's the opinion of a Canadian Journalist, not Taylor's. This has nothing to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage." What is the significance of it? Maybe if it was a close friend of Taylor's who said "That was the only time I saw you rattled," it might mean something, but not some journalist who saw him what? Maybe one or two times? Besides, I fail to see what this has to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage."
Taylor has praised the "high average level of attractiveness" of Japanese women, saying few resemble the "waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races."[14]
This is and out and out misstatement. If you will take the trouble to look at the original quote, you'll see that Taylor, in making the "waddling colossi" statement, was talking about the Japanese people *in general,* not Japanese women in particular, contrary to what that paragraph claimed. So that quotation is just plain misleading. And again, I don't understand why this is here. What does this have to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage?" The only thing I can figure is it's trying to imply something. I don't think innuendo has any place in an encyclopedia. Am I wrong?
I tried to insert some actual, substantial quotes from Taylor that might have something to do with this subject and give an actual feel for Taylor's beliefs and they were promptly deleted with the rationale that they were just "a plug for Taylor's views" Uh, excuse me, but is this not supposed to be a section on Taylor's views? I don't understand why innuendo is allowed but actual quotes from Taylor are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reinserting superfluous passages, as well as NPOV language that I removed. Please read the preceding talk subheading. User:TimMagic asked, "Okay, why is this here?" Let me answer his question. Most of the section constituted filler, in order to justify having a separate section. The real reason for the separate section was to libel the subject.
Let's break it down: "Taylor praised the 'high average level of attractiveness' of Japanese women..." He did nothing of the sort. He wrote, "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."
So, the passage contained a fake "quote." The original passage follows, in greater context, so as to dispel any doubt that I might have misrepresented Taylor's words.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/01/in_praise_of_ho.php
"People
"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, with the same black hair, dark eyes, and olive skin. But there is a different and more pleasant homogeneity that goes beyond racial traits. Almost no Japanese are overweight, for example, and the occasional fatty is nothing like the waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races.
"Japanese also dress much better than Americans. There is a stylishness about them that seems to recoil from the baggy-shorts-and-T-shirt regimen common in America. If you see someone dressed like a bum, it is probably an American.
"Even in uniform, American police officers or TSA baggage screeners may be fat or sloppy-looking. Blacks and Hispanics, especially, often show a slouching kind of contempt for their jobs. Japanese bustling about in their trim uniforms almost never give this impression.
"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.
"At the same time, Japanese have a spirit of service and attentiveness that is rare in Americans. As in any country, levels of service vary with the price and elegance of the establishment, but Japanese almost never treat each other with the obvious indifference common in America. Japanese waiters or sales personnel hurry to help you, welcome you with smiles, and apologize for any inconvenience. Americans are surprised to find there is no tipping in Japan. Japanese rush to serve you because that is their job. In a way, they have no choice; Japanese consumers expect first-rate service, and will not patronize a store or restaurant that doesn’t give it."
Next, the passage about Taylor being "rattled."
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/on_the_menu_opp.php#
"HE ORDERS the fish and chips; I settle for a cup of coffee.
"The waitress leaves with our order and Jared Taylor leans back, catching his breath.
"'The media scrum gave you a pretty rough time back there,' I remark.
"He shrugs and smiles.
“'That was the only time I saw you rattled,” I press him. 'When that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled.'
“'I was annoyed,' he corrects. 'There are certain things I wouldn’t talk about, like my eating habits and my bowel habits.'”
The passage in the WP article had been cleaned up, so as to accurately represent the original article, but the question remains: What on earth is such a passage doing within a WP article? How is it encyclopedic? The answers are, in reverse order: It is not in the least encyclopedic, and the only reason it and the aforementioned passage were in the section, was as lead-ins to the baseless libel which was inserted in the article, complete with a fake link, as part of a vendetta. Remove the libel, and there is no reason for the rest, particularly the fraudulent "quote" about the supposed attractiveness of Japanese women. (I am not speaking for myself here. When I was single, I found many Japanese women very attractive, but any opinions I might once have had as to the beauty of women to whom I am not married have since been surgically removed.)
WP has had enough negative publicity, don'cha think? We don't need another Seigenthaler scandal. 24.90.201.232 ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the sentence is written. I believe the original sentence is not about inter racial marriage and makes Taylor look like a pervert. I changed it so the big idea of the piece is shown. Sorry for my bad english.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jared Taylor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The article about Jared Taylor includes the following sentence:
<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >> This sentence should not be included for two reasons, the most obvious being that Potok's references to me (this is Jared Taylor writing) are completely unsourced. Given that virtually everything I have ever written about race is on the Internet it would be easy to add hyperlinks to the passages Potok caims to be citing. Why has he not done that? I, myself, have no idea to what passages he is referring. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, "encyclopedic content must be verified." Where'es the verification? Assuming that I actually used the words "dissipated" or "pathological" in connection with blacks, the reader has no idea what I meant. Was I writing about a particular black person, some black people, all black people? The implication is that I think all blacks are "deviant" or "dissipated," which I most certainly do not. For these reasons, therefore, this sentence should be removed permanently from the article about me. The charges it makes are unsourced, and what it implies about my views of blacks is wrong and deceptive. 68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
Tuppertwo Tuppertwo ( talk) 01:16, 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.
Tuppertwo Tuppertwo ( talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
There used to be a picture of Jared Taylor. Why was is removed? 217.236.201.18 ( talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fixed (I think) 129.120.177.8 ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Re [7]. 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:
Don't use "Wikipedia is not censored" as an excuse. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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 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'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)
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:
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)
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)
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)