![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Even though multiple reliable sources call Richard a white supremacist, it is clear that not all of them do. Labeling someone a white supremacist when there is contradicting evidence (such as Richard himself rejecting a white supremacist label) is in my opinion a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Even if you disagree, calling him a white supremacist has without a doubt only caused problems. Therefore, I propose that we change the first paragraph to only mention his profession. Such as: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" or something like that. We could then make a separate paragraph stating that his views have been described as white supremacist, citing all sources used to call him a white supremacist. In my opinion, we shouldn't use people's political views, particularly something as taboo as white supremacy, as someone's main descriptor, especially if they reject the label. Doing that violates the no original research policy by taking labels from select sources and using that as a descriptor. Also, saying with absolute certainty "[Richard] is a white supremacist" and saying a few sentences later "[Richard] has stated that he rejects the label "white supremacist"" seems contradictory. I'll leave everyone to discuss this issue and hopefully get some consensus before I attempt this compromise.
I'll tag some involved editors to help:
TheBD2000 ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very strange thing to fight over. I come to this page as a curious novice and I see the very first sentence stating "Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. I go, "great! this is what I'm looking for!" Then I click on the source and see a bunch of links that you call "reliable sources" that are all pretty much saying the same thing: Richard Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because..." I find the reasoning of many of those editorials very dualistic and weak. From what I can tell, you guys are saying, "This guy is a White Supremacist because most people believe he is." Since you obviously have an agenda to shame and educate the alt-right (and there is nothing wrong with having an agenda), wouldn't you be more effective to not have such a provocative stance and let the facts stand by themselves? Do what you want to do, all I know is I'm not reading anything after the first sentence. S2pid80it ( talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
My main argument here is that calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist based on various opinions seems like a violation of the no original research policy. Especially since not all reliable sources call him that. TheBD2000 ( talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
How about changing the first paragraph to "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." and then using the previous sources for that. The change would make this article less controversial and that edit would not be in the least way detrimental. Could that work? TheBD2000 ( talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Note this is no longer an RFC. If enough support appears for a new alternative then an RFC could be held. -- NeilN talk to me 20:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Time to revive this. Read WP:NPOV. It states clear as day:This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So consensus does not override the NPOV policy.
WP:YESPOV says: Avoid stating opinions as facts Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are clearly opinions and not facts.
It also says: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Richard Spencer has been called both a white supremacist and a white nationalist by many sources. Both assertions have been undoubtedly contested and thus both should be treated as opinions and not facts.
Finally, WP:IMPARTIAL says that Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. The current version of Wikipedia is engaging in the dispute by matter-of-factly calling Spencer a white supremacist.
I stand by my previous proposal to write the opening paragraph like this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." That wording is not objectionable in the slightest way.
In a nutshell, I hope that all editors can see past their own bias against Richard Spencer. I never said that I was a fan of his, because I'm definitely not. I just think that attacking him seriously damages the reputation of Wikipedia. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight"(emphasis mine). To the best of my understanding, sources call Spencer either a white supremacist or a white nationalist. This difference in labeling is not, in my opinion, "conflict" among reliable sources as the no sources assert the other label is incorrect. Rather, there's variation in the label used, but no dispute about those labels. Sources use "white supremacist" ( USA Today, AL.com, BBC 1 and 2, The Independent, CNN, Inside Higher Ed, VICE, The Detroit News, NY Times, Missoulian). Buzzfeed labels him a white nationalist but his "think tank" as white supremacist ( [1]). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses nationalist and supremacist in the same article ( [2]) but in another article calls him just a supremacist ( [3]). Others call him a white nationalist ( LA Times 1 and 2, Boston Globe, WaPo, Time, NY Mag, NY Times, The Guardian). A few call him a neo-Nazi ( NBC affiliate WPMI, NBC News). Are there any reliable sources that contest these labels? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces" is utterly incorrect. The sources linked above and in the article are not opinion pieces. They are verifiable statements by reliable sources. An opinion piece would be an op-ed or a self-published source like a blog or guest column. The sources are unwavering in their description of Spencer as either a White nationalist or a White supremacist. Part of Wikipedia's venerability policy as well as WP:NPOV is that we reflect reliable sources without inserting our own bias/POV, even if those sources disagree with our views or are possibly wrong. The essay WP:TRUTH explains this well. We are a tertiary source which summaries reliable [{WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] by giving due weight to the various aspects of a topic based on the totality of those reliable sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: BUT THEY CONFLICT! No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once! WP:YESPOV states as clear as day: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. This article CLEARLY violates that rule by saying Richard B. Spencer is a white supremacist. Even though there is conflicting evidence in sources. What in the world is wrong with my proposed change?! THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: Let me spell it out for you real slowly. RICHARD. SPENCER. HAS. BEEN. CALLED. MANY. THINGS. . . SOME. OF. WHICH. ARE. CON-TRA-DIC-TOR-Y. . . ALL. OF. THEM. ARE. AT. VARIANCE. . . THUS. THEY. ARE. CON-FLIC-TING. AND. VIOLATE. THE. WP:YESPOV. POLICY. Is that clear? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: @ Zigzig20s: @ Nomoskedasticity: @ Rockypedia: @ Electrosharkskin: @ Crillfish: @ JRBx45x: @ Grayfell: @ EvergreenFir: THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No objections to this, huh? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please remove slanderous claims that Spencer is a white supremacist. It is not based in truth and lacks proper research. If the man has rejected the term multiple times and has labeled himself as something else, he should not be labeled as the slur assigned to him by others. If another page cites a an athlete as a gamer, or cheater yet the athlete has only demonstrated athletics, it would be untruthful and slanderous to label him as anything else.
Wikipedia has no place for untruth. Stop lying and wake up. You are only hurting yourselves and others by twisting the real truth Flaxenhair ( talk) 05:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Please note, a discussion has been opened at WP:ANI#Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman about this. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I came to this page in hopes of learning about Richard B. Spencer and to understand the controversy behind him and I see basically an attack piece on him.
The proof that he is a White Nationalist or is cited with a bunch of sources accusing him of being a White Nationalist. Unless he personally wears this label, then you need to change it to "Accused White Nationalist" otherwise, it shows the article as biased and people like me will lose interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It says he's a White supremacist though. Which is incorrect. He is a White nationalist, not a supremacist. I have posted another section about this, where he directly says he does not support supremacy. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler." Citations, please. Also, denounce Adolf Hitler how? In what context? I know you guys don't like him, but shouldn't you at least try to sound unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhrarday ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM and
WP:DE
|
---|
I initially came to this site based on stuff that I was reading on Facebook about Richard Spencer. The very first sentence confused me because it claimed that Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. That surprised me because the term is so pejorative that it surprised me that Spencer would claim that mantle. So, I clicked on the reference and saw a long list of links to back up this fact. All of the links were to editorials that basically said, "Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because of..." So, I came onto this discussion and pointed out in the "Just the facts" thread that there are problems with citing editorials as fact. The response that I got was "This has already been discussed and we are not changing it." That prompted me to read the very interesting discussion. I have no interest in getting involved with what appears to me to be a juvenile power struggle, but I want to make my observations that I have no doubt will be discounted. Because of this discussion, I was forced to go and do a lot of googling and thinking and what-not. While, I am not 100% sure that I have all sides of the issue, I can certainly understand why people would see him as a racist. The issue that I have is that I was not able to reach that conclusion by reading this Wikipedia page which is the ostensible purpose of this site. From what I understand the argument for calling him a White Supremacist is that vast majority of the reporters and editors in trusted news sites think he is. The problem with that mentality is that it connotes that "truth" is something that is voted on. Back in the day, a newspaper wouldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald "A murder". They would call him "A CONVICTED murderer". While it seems subtle, the former is an opinion, the latter is a fact and the newspapers were very concerned about facts. The editorial board might use the word "murderer" in the opinion section, but you would never see that in an actual news article. Nobody, left or right, Democrat or Republican saw that distinction as trivial. It was holy. It was important that the newspapers be seen as a place that could be trusted to deliver only facts. The general attitude of the "truth keepers" is also troubling. I am seeing threats of banning people and passive-aggressive insults that I find unbecoming. These people seem to believe that anyone who questions their collected wisdom must be a Richard Spencer sympathizer and probably have some nefarious pro White Supremacist agenda. This, of course, does nothing but drive people who disagree with them to other sources to get their information which only feeds into more and more and more people deciding that they find Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh more trustworthy for their information than the "mainstream media". Based on the general tone of this community, I fully expect to be discounted and ignored at best and possibly even derided. That's fine. However, I want to implore you to look at a similar wiki page on Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist ( /info/en/?search=Shirley_Phelps-Roper). It doesn't hold back on all of the hateful things she has done while avoiding statements of "Shirley Phelps is a Person of Hate." One last thing: as I said before, I want to encourage you to think of the purpose of your antipathy. It is understandable on why you obviously hate him. But my question to you is, "What do you hope to accomplish by ostensibly slandering him?" Left-leaning people who are obsessed with Spencer will not learn anything. Anyone else will read the first sentence and conclude it is a partisan article, and immediately dismiss it and try to look for the information somewhere else. While your mission to change hearts and minds are noble, I don't think this petty fight is an effective way to do it. Good luck to you. S2pid80it ( talk) 21:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
S2pid80it How can anyone take your assertions seriously when you can't distinguish between editorials and news stories? This article cites plenty of the latter that identify Spencer as a white supremacist. Spencer's claims about himself have as much weight as your "self description" as a neutral observer. Scaleshombre ( talk) 00:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hat it! Scaleshombre ( talk) 01:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I for one am happy as shit that we finally got a "self-described neutral observer" here to comment. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Please forgive me for responding but I have a follow-up question. I totally understand that you guys are smarter and more talented me. It is obvious that you don't suffer fools like me lightly so this makes it difficult for me to bring it up because this point is just as stupid as the last. However.... from what I can tell, you didn't answer my question. As a wiki novice, I am not smart enough to know the difference between a "forum" and a "diatribe" from a legitimate concern (obviously it is MY concern). I COMPLETELY get your point: because the NYT and CNN are "trusted news sources" (or whatever you call them) and the people who write the editorial and analysis articles that you cite, have all voted that Spencer is a white supremacist, then by the wiki standards, he is a white supremacist. Ok. fair enough. My pea brain was not aware of how these facts were created. Now that I understand the definition of 'fact' in the wikipedia sense, I can FINALLY accept your label. But you still have not addressed my second concern. Again (bowing down in profound humbleness), I understand completely, that fools don't deserve second thoughts, but if you would allow me to ask my probably over-the-top stupid question yet again, it would help me, and I suspect help others idiots like myself: These same sources that have voted that Spencer is a White Supremacist, have also universally labeled President Donald Trump a Liar. It seems to me, they have a FAR longer list of facts to back that label up and probably 65% of the country would vote for that fact if they had the were given the opportunity. Given the wikipedia standards, that means that Donald Trump's page should be changed to "Donald Trump (Liar)" and the topic sentence should read, "Donald Trump is a Liar who was elected the 45th POTUS" oslt. However, this very legitimate "voted upon fact" would unnecessarily(in my view) inflame 65 million people who voted for him. These people (though some of those sources seem to be voting that they are no longer people) also enjoy wikipedia. While it is factually true as we are now defining "facts", it adds very little value and creates unnecessary antipathy and would immediately cause 65 million people to (fair or not) start calling wikipedia fake news. However, ("oh, God: he's KILLING me!"), if you moved all of donald trump's lies into a separate "Lies Donald Trump is Accused of", you might appear more neutral. A novice will then be more willing to go, "Damn. I didn't know THAT." Please keep in mind that no analogy is perfect. After you through ripping it apart by all of many inaccuracies that are probably in it, could you PLEASE try to understand the spirit of the question and at least address it? Thank you again for your hard work. You are on a profoundly important mission guarding this page! S2pid80it ( talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Wikipedians in charge of this semi-protected page, I would like to correct the record.
Richard Spencer did not graduate from the English department at UVA with "High Distinction." He was not a Distinguished Major in English and did not write a senior thesis for us. While I am happy to put an editor in touch with the Registrar here at the University of Virginia, the requested edit should be much easier than that to effect. This doesn’t rise to the level of the Philip Roth edit fiasco ( https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia).
All a trusted editor needs to do is check the source cited here (The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/). The article states only, "He lasted just one academic year at Colgate before transferring to the University of Virginia, where he majored in music history and English."
Spencer seems to be inflating his credentials on his Wikipedia page. He was one of our run-of-the-mill majors.
On behalf of the English Department, I ask that you edit the following line:
In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. with High Distinction in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.
to read
In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.
Our department deplores Spencer’s racist politics and censure his self-credentialing. We disown him. He dishonors The University.
Yours,
Brad Pasanek Director of Undergraduate Study English, University of Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpasa13 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Done
Scaleshombre (
talk)
17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The plot thickens. I did some digging, and there's a Newsweek piece that says he graduated with "high distinction...." It's an opinion piece, but it's by a Newsweek staffer. At the same time, though, we have the note above disputing the "high distinction" claim. I'm fine with leaving the disputed claim out. (I know this is definitely not Wiki policy, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that claims that redound to an a-hole's credit should be held to a higher standard of proof than that which applies to non-aholes.) That said, should this be looked into further? Scaleshombre ( talk) 19:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
this just seems like a personal attack on his character, with a gotcha topic that doesn't belong in the intro or article at all, if anything it could be better worded Wikigirl97 ( talk) 02:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
above user's article talk related questions copied from my talk page.
|
---|
what's a "scanctions"? also it just seems out of place even if there is a source for it, wtf is refusing to reject something anyways? sounds like some jewish gotcha bs to me that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikigirl97 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC) |
Wikigirl97 Can you elaborate on your "jewish gotcha bs" comment? I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article, but it might help us understand your issues a little better. Right now it seems that editing WP is the least of your problems. Scaleshombre ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the " Conservatism in the United States" template from the bottom of the article. Editor Rockypedia restored it, writing in the edit summary "there's approx. a thousand articles that describe Spencer's political stance as conservative." Most of the RS I've seen talk about Spencer's estrangement from mainstream conservatism, including his being booted from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year, and his firing from The American Conservative magazine because his views were too extreme. He may have started out as a mainstream conservative, but he's "evolved" into something very different. I think it's undue to keep the navbox on his page, and would like to get feedback on removing it. Scaleshombre ( talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No, not exactly. There are terms that describe Spencer's views more accurately -- alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, etc. Lumping him in as a conservative is undue. The article talks about his conservative roots, which is clearly appropriate and backed by RS. Including the Conservatism template, however, suggests that he's currently a significant figure in conservative politics, which is not supported by RS. It's like calling Mussolini a socialist, or Ronald Reagan a Democrat; it was true at earlier points in their careers, but it wasn't those affiliations that made them notable (or notorious, in Mussolini's case). We need to remove the template. Scaleshombre ( talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed the page's history, and I noticed that the template was first added a few weeks ago without consensus. It really should have been discussed first. Also, I'm sure it's not your intent, but the template indirectly legitimizes Spencer's views by connecting them to mainstream conservatism. If there was an encyclopedic reason to do so (i.e., RS/due weight), then I'd have no problem with it. But that's not the case here. Why should we help him when we don't have to? Scaleshombre ( talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Two examples, but pretty thin. I've changed my opinion and I don't have a problem with the category being removed. Rockypedia ( talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The debate on this page has recently been featured in a news report about Wikipedia titled " Are Jews white and is Richard Spencer a white supremacist? Wikipedia debates" and published on the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It seems this is the second such piece to be written for the newspaper (see: " The royal houses of Netanyahu and Baratheon: Inside this week's drama on Hebrew Wikipedia") by a writer called Omer Benjakob who claims to be researching Wikipedia. -- 192.118.73.36 ( talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add descriptor "writer" to lead section, as I don't believe one's ideology, that being white supremacy, counts as an occupation. DanKasich ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)User:DanKasich DanKasich ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Apologies, i forgot to mention what i would replace it to, which would be I think another sentence should be added below saying
"In October of 2014, Richard Spencer made the statement on his twitter: "Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It's not going away, not something to get worked up about.
using this tweet https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/528395974666764288?lang=en as a source. " Muhrarday ( talk) 06:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Richardbspencer.com is currently a boilerplate placeholder from a domain site. Archive.org shows this happened in mid-August, first through Squarespace, and then Hover. Rather than link to spam or potentially worse, it seems like it's better to remove the link until this resolves. Grayfell ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: You have reverted my edit under the pretext of "unclear if speaker was referring to *that* kind of cultural Christian". I ask you to return the wiki link back. As you can notice in the interview, Spencer then explains to Martin what he means by calling himself a "cultural Christian" ( 8:40):
Martin: What is a "cultural Christian"?
Spencer: I grew up in a Christian background, I resonate with Christianity and so on.
It clearly corresponds with the definition in Cultural Christian: "cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up."-- Russian Rocky ( talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Nina Kouprianova is not Russian American. She has immigrated to the United States and was not born in the United States. Kouprianova is Russian and probably has as much respect to the United States as Alexander Dugin. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is original research, right?
Not only that, the link is broken. I propose we strike it out. However, I know there may be certain reasons we include self-incriminating statements in Wikipedia. If there is a rule for that which is applicable, I'm all ears.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, his website did actually say that. I don't see an issue, it's his own self-description of why he left. I interpreted it as a dig (by Spencer) at Duke or academia more generally. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I make no apology for his political views but the fact remains that this is NOT how encyclopedias are written, particularly where the topic involves a living person.
There is some irony to this: His right to hold his viewpoint and express it is the same one used to malign it. Also, there's the matter that it is improbable that anyone contributing to this article's content has an entry of their own on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.69.145 ( talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017
Actually, when the subject of an article is an American White Supremist (sic), then that is EXACTLY how an encyclopedia article should begin. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white supremacist views." (I would prefer).
Or: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white nationalist views. Spencer rejects the label "white supremacist," and prefers to describe himself as an identitarian, though he is commonly understood to be a white supremacist." ...
Hm, then this seems to call into question the label. I think it's important to make clear that this is what he is.
Apart from that matter, can we remove the picture? I would prefer that we don't have a picture of this person, in case that is possible. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 14:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to Richard Spencer a white rights activist. We have updated the story to more accurately refer to him as a white supremacist."-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this revert which removed this well-sourced material:
References
Numerous other national sources have talked about his speaking engagements at various universities and the potential or actual violence that comes with them:
Some of these are already covered. I am unclear why the speaking engagements with similar lawsuits and controversy in Ohio are not relevant.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that Florida's governor has declared a state of emergency, which is attracting quite a lot of media attention, this might be worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
How should the "Views" section be ordered? A new section was just added, placing his views on the Iraq war at the top. I'm going to reorder it, but it'd be nice to get some additional feedback so this isn't just my own decision alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a minor concern. It feels rather off, sort of deliberately suggestive, to write about Spencer's opinion on Hitler the way this article does. Stating that he called things Hitler did despicable "without elaborating on which things he was referring to" is seriously suggestive. It deliberately raises the question of whether he is OK with various horrible things Hitler did. Merely stating that he said Hitler had "done things that I think are despicable" on its own impresses the general vagueness without pointing out that he didn't specify. If, in the interview, he specifically refused to go into specifics then it might be better to state that he was pressed to be more specific but refused. This makes it more clear that his lack of specificity was deliberate. But if he simply didn't specify, pointing out this lack of specificity is unnecessary and highly suggestive. If the journalist report this was taken from included this, then it should be specifically quoted to make it clear that this is a reference to a statement by another party. Otherwise, deeming it noteworthy to declare "he didn't specify" raises questions on the impartiality of the article. Plenty of people have said that Hitler and various other people have done horrible things and it's not considered noteworthy to mention that they didn't get into specifics after all. 98.197.193.213 ( talk) 00:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would go further than this. Given that Spencer has specifically denied being a "white supremacist", the same logic appears to apply; in the absence of some statement of his that confirms the dictionary definition of "supremacist", and keeping in mind the dictionary definition of "supreme", it seems to me a direct contradiction of his statement by him is necessary, or, at least, something substantially MORE than just the weakly supported opinion of some writer, group of writers, or media personalities, before the assertion of "supremacist" can be used. A "guess" is not enough, and a thought that his reference to the American people likely included only whites is really not enough, either; I am frankly very disappointed that anyone would feel that such thinking would be seriously entertained by anyone here. This nation exists as a consequence of enormous immigration from all over the globe by persons of every color and creed over four hundred years; no sane person would believe that a reference to Americans implied only one color absent total ignorance or a substantial political motive. Various groups supported the creation of racial nations on various grounds in the past, and a few such nations still exist, and although times have changed, I can't recall any of the people involved ever having been labeled racial supremacists at ANY time, then or since. I believe the entire purpose of such labeling to be entirely political, and a basis for denying Spencer any speech rights at all. As far as I am concerned, this labeling does NOT support the denial of speech rights, but it is clear that some institutions believe otherwise, and Wikipedia's contribution to that support is to be avoided. It reflects very poorly on some of the persons involved, who would never support, for example, any theory that the Muslim religion perceived its beliefs as supremacist, though in fact some of the leaders of that religion quite readily espouse just that view, and are quite open about it. 2001:5B0:47C4:D078:C818:5F20:7573:33D8 ( talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
These groups have been proven to be highly inaccurate and AWFUL sources. There’s plenty of info out there about Spencer without using those two messes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.105.160 ( talk) 03:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
remove from log. Thanks Edaham ( talk) 08:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When the discussion is always censored by a gang of Leftist Antifa thugs? LiberatorLX ( talk) 03:54, 23 October 2017 (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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Even though multiple reliable sources call Richard a white supremacist, it is clear that not all of them do. Labeling someone a white supremacist when there is contradicting evidence (such as Richard himself rejecting a white supremacist label) is in my opinion a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Even if you disagree, calling him a white supremacist has without a doubt only caused problems. Therefore, I propose that we change the first paragraph to only mention his profession. Such as: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" or something like that. We could then make a separate paragraph stating that his views have been described as white supremacist, citing all sources used to call him a white supremacist. In my opinion, we shouldn't use people's political views, particularly something as taboo as white supremacy, as someone's main descriptor, especially if they reject the label. Doing that violates the no original research policy by taking labels from select sources and using that as a descriptor. Also, saying with absolute certainty "[Richard] is a white supremacist" and saying a few sentences later "[Richard] has stated that he rejects the label "white supremacist"" seems contradictory. I'll leave everyone to discuss this issue and hopefully get some consensus before I attempt this compromise.
I'll tag some involved editors to help:
TheBD2000 ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very strange thing to fight over. I come to this page as a curious novice and I see the very first sentence stating "Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. I go, "great! this is what I'm looking for!" Then I click on the source and see a bunch of links that you call "reliable sources" that are all pretty much saying the same thing: Richard Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because..." I find the reasoning of many of those editorials very dualistic and weak. From what I can tell, you guys are saying, "This guy is a White Supremacist because most people believe he is." Since you obviously have an agenda to shame and educate the alt-right (and there is nothing wrong with having an agenda), wouldn't you be more effective to not have such a provocative stance and let the facts stand by themselves? Do what you want to do, all I know is I'm not reading anything after the first sentence. S2pid80it ( talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
My main argument here is that calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist based on various opinions seems like a violation of the no original research policy. Especially since not all reliable sources call him that. TheBD2000 ( talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
How about changing the first paragraph to "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." and then using the previous sources for that. The change would make this article less controversial and that edit would not be in the least way detrimental. Could that work? TheBD2000 ( talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Note this is no longer an RFC. If enough support appears for a new alternative then an RFC could be held. -- NeilN talk to me 20:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Time to revive this. Read WP:NPOV. It states clear as day:This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So consensus does not override the NPOV policy.
WP:YESPOV says: Avoid stating opinions as facts Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." All sources that call Spencer a white supremacist are clearly opinions and not facts.
It also says: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Richard Spencer has been called both a white supremacist and a white nationalist by many sources. Both assertions have been undoubtedly contested and thus both should be treated as opinions and not facts.
Finally, WP:IMPARTIAL says that Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. The current version of Wikipedia is engaging in the dispute by matter-of-factly calling Spencer a white supremacist.
I stand by my previous proposal to write the opening paragraph like this: "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American public speaker and political commentator who is the president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, as well as the Washington Summit Publishers" and making a separate paragraph saying "he has been accused repeatedly of being a white supremacist, which he denies." That wording is not objectionable in the slightest way.
In a nutshell, I hope that all editors can see past their own bias against Richard Spencer. I never said that I was a fan of his, because I'm definitely not. I just think that attacking him seriously damages the reputation of Wikipedia. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight"(emphasis mine). To the best of my understanding, sources call Spencer either a white supremacist or a white nationalist. This difference in labeling is not, in my opinion, "conflict" among reliable sources as the no sources assert the other label is incorrect. Rather, there's variation in the label used, but no dispute about those labels. Sources use "white supremacist" ( USA Today, AL.com, BBC 1 and 2, The Independent, CNN, Inside Higher Ed, VICE, The Detroit News, NY Times, Missoulian). Buzzfeed labels him a white nationalist but his "think tank" as white supremacist ( [1]). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses nationalist and supremacist in the same article ( [2]) but in another article calls him just a supremacist ( [3]). Others call him a white nationalist ( LA Times 1 and 2, Boston Globe, WaPo, Time, NY Mag, NY Times, The Guardian). A few call him a neo-Nazi ( NBC affiliate WPMI, NBC News). Are there any reliable sources that contest these labels? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
the sources calling him that are biased opinion pieces" is utterly incorrect. The sources linked above and in the article are not opinion pieces. They are verifiable statements by reliable sources. An opinion piece would be an op-ed or a self-published source like a blog or guest column. The sources are unwavering in their description of Spencer as either a White nationalist or a White supremacist. Part of Wikipedia's venerability policy as well as WP:NPOV is that we reflect reliable sources without inserting our own bias/POV, even if those sources disagree with our views or are possibly wrong. The essay WP:TRUTH explains this well. We are a tertiary source which summaries reliable [{WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] by giving due weight to the various aspects of a topic based on the totality of those reliable sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: BUT THEY CONFLICT! No one can be a white nationalist, white separatist, and white supremacist all at once! WP:YESPOV states as clear as day: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. This article CLEARLY violates that rule by saying Richard B. Spencer is a white supremacist. Even though there is conflicting evidence in sources. What in the world is wrong with my proposed change?! THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: Let me spell it out for you real slowly. RICHARD. SPENCER. HAS. BEEN. CALLED. MANY. THINGS. . . SOME. OF. WHICH. ARE. CON-TRA-DIC-TOR-Y. . . ALL. OF. THEM. ARE. AT. VARIANCE. . . THUS. THEY. ARE. CON-FLIC-TING. AND. VIOLATE. THE. WP:YESPOV. POLICY. Is that clear? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: @ Zigzig20s: @ Nomoskedasticity: @ Rockypedia: @ Electrosharkskin: @ Crillfish: @ JRBx45x: @ Grayfell: @ EvergreenFir: THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No objections to this, huh? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please remove slanderous claims that Spencer is a white supremacist. It is not based in truth and lacks proper research. If the man has rejected the term multiple times and has labeled himself as something else, he should not be labeled as the slur assigned to him by others. If another page cites a an athlete as a gamer, or cheater yet the athlete has only demonstrated athletics, it would be untruthful and slanderous to label him as anything else.
Wikipedia has no place for untruth. Stop lying and wake up. You are only hurting yourselves and others by twisting the real truth Flaxenhair ( talk) 05:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Please note, a discussion has been opened at WP:ANI#Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman about this. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I came to this page in hopes of learning about Richard B. Spencer and to understand the controversy behind him and I see basically an attack piece on him.
The proof that he is a White Nationalist or is cited with a bunch of sources accusing him of being a White Nationalist. Unless he personally wears this label, then you need to change it to "Accused White Nationalist" otherwise, it shows the article as biased and people like me will lose interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It says he's a White supremacist though. Which is incorrect. He is a White nationalist, not a supremacist. I have posted another section about this, where he directly says he does not support supremacy. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and has on several occasions refused to denounce Adolf Hitler." Citations, please. Also, denounce Adolf Hitler how? In what context? I know you guys don't like him, but shouldn't you at least try to sound unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhrarday ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM and
WP:DE
|
---|
I initially came to this site based on stuff that I was reading on Facebook about Richard Spencer. The very first sentence confused me because it claimed that Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist. That surprised me because the term is so pejorative that it surprised me that Spencer would claim that mantle. So, I clicked on the reference and saw a long list of links to back up this fact. All of the links were to editorials that basically said, "Spencer denies being a White Supremacist but WE say he is because of..." So, I came onto this discussion and pointed out in the "Just the facts" thread that there are problems with citing editorials as fact. The response that I got was "This has already been discussed and we are not changing it." That prompted me to read the very interesting discussion. I have no interest in getting involved with what appears to me to be a juvenile power struggle, but I want to make my observations that I have no doubt will be discounted. Because of this discussion, I was forced to go and do a lot of googling and thinking and what-not. While, I am not 100% sure that I have all sides of the issue, I can certainly understand why people would see him as a racist. The issue that I have is that I was not able to reach that conclusion by reading this Wikipedia page which is the ostensible purpose of this site. From what I understand the argument for calling him a White Supremacist is that vast majority of the reporters and editors in trusted news sites think he is. The problem with that mentality is that it connotes that "truth" is something that is voted on. Back in the day, a newspaper wouldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald "A murder". They would call him "A CONVICTED murderer". While it seems subtle, the former is an opinion, the latter is a fact and the newspapers were very concerned about facts. The editorial board might use the word "murderer" in the opinion section, but you would never see that in an actual news article. Nobody, left or right, Democrat or Republican saw that distinction as trivial. It was holy. It was important that the newspapers be seen as a place that could be trusted to deliver only facts. The general attitude of the "truth keepers" is also troubling. I am seeing threats of banning people and passive-aggressive insults that I find unbecoming. These people seem to believe that anyone who questions their collected wisdom must be a Richard Spencer sympathizer and probably have some nefarious pro White Supremacist agenda. This, of course, does nothing but drive people who disagree with them to other sources to get their information which only feeds into more and more and more people deciding that they find Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh more trustworthy for their information than the "mainstream media". Based on the general tone of this community, I fully expect to be discounted and ignored at best and possibly even derided. That's fine. However, I want to implore you to look at a similar wiki page on Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist ( /info/en/?search=Shirley_Phelps-Roper). It doesn't hold back on all of the hateful things she has done while avoiding statements of "Shirley Phelps is a Person of Hate." One last thing: as I said before, I want to encourage you to think of the purpose of your antipathy. It is understandable on why you obviously hate him. But my question to you is, "What do you hope to accomplish by ostensibly slandering him?" Left-leaning people who are obsessed with Spencer will not learn anything. Anyone else will read the first sentence and conclude it is a partisan article, and immediately dismiss it and try to look for the information somewhere else. While your mission to change hearts and minds are noble, I don't think this petty fight is an effective way to do it. Good luck to you. S2pid80it ( talk) 21:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
S2pid80it How can anyone take your assertions seriously when you can't distinguish between editorials and news stories? This article cites plenty of the latter that identify Spencer as a white supremacist. Spencer's claims about himself have as much weight as your "self description" as a neutral observer. Scaleshombre ( talk) 00:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hat it! Scaleshombre ( talk) 01:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I for one am happy as shit that we finally got a "self-described neutral observer" here to comment. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Please forgive me for responding but I have a follow-up question. I totally understand that you guys are smarter and more talented me. It is obvious that you don't suffer fools like me lightly so this makes it difficult for me to bring it up because this point is just as stupid as the last. However.... from what I can tell, you didn't answer my question. As a wiki novice, I am not smart enough to know the difference between a "forum" and a "diatribe" from a legitimate concern (obviously it is MY concern). I COMPLETELY get your point: because the NYT and CNN are "trusted news sources" (or whatever you call them) and the people who write the editorial and analysis articles that you cite, have all voted that Spencer is a white supremacist, then by the wiki standards, he is a white supremacist. Ok. fair enough. My pea brain was not aware of how these facts were created. Now that I understand the definition of 'fact' in the wikipedia sense, I can FINALLY accept your label. But you still have not addressed my second concern. Again (bowing down in profound humbleness), I understand completely, that fools don't deserve second thoughts, but if you would allow me to ask my probably over-the-top stupid question yet again, it would help me, and I suspect help others idiots like myself: These same sources that have voted that Spencer is a White Supremacist, have also universally labeled President Donald Trump a Liar. It seems to me, they have a FAR longer list of facts to back that label up and probably 65% of the country would vote for that fact if they had the were given the opportunity. Given the wikipedia standards, that means that Donald Trump's page should be changed to "Donald Trump (Liar)" and the topic sentence should read, "Donald Trump is a Liar who was elected the 45th POTUS" oslt. However, this very legitimate "voted upon fact" would unnecessarily(in my view) inflame 65 million people who voted for him. These people (though some of those sources seem to be voting that they are no longer people) also enjoy wikipedia. While it is factually true as we are now defining "facts", it adds very little value and creates unnecessary antipathy and would immediately cause 65 million people to (fair or not) start calling wikipedia fake news. However, ("oh, God: he's KILLING me!"), if you moved all of donald trump's lies into a separate "Lies Donald Trump is Accused of", you might appear more neutral. A novice will then be more willing to go, "Damn. I didn't know THAT." Please keep in mind that no analogy is perfect. After you through ripping it apart by all of many inaccuracies that are probably in it, could you PLEASE try to understand the spirit of the question and at least address it? Thank you again for your hard work. You are on a profoundly important mission guarding this page! S2pid80it ( talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Wikipedians in charge of this semi-protected page, I would like to correct the record.
Richard Spencer did not graduate from the English department at UVA with "High Distinction." He was not a Distinguished Major in English and did not write a senior thesis for us. While I am happy to put an editor in touch with the Registrar here at the University of Virginia, the requested edit should be much easier than that to effect. This doesn’t rise to the level of the Philip Roth edit fiasco ( https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia).
All a trusted editor needs to do is check the source cited here (The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/). The article states only, "He lasted just one academic year at Colgate before transferring to the University of Virginia, where he majored in music history and English."
Spencer seems to be inflating his credentials on his Wikipedia page. He was one of our run-of-the-mill majors.
On behalf of the English Department, I ask that you edit the following line:
In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. with High Distinction in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.
to read
In 2001, Spencer received a B.A. in English Literature and Music from the University of Virginia and, in 2003, an M.A. in the Humanities from the University of Chicago.
Our department deplores Spencer’s racist politics and censure his self-credentialing. We disown him. He dishonors The University.
Yours,
Brad Pasanek Director of Undergraduate Study English, University of Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpasa13 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Done
Scaleshombre (
talk)
17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The plot thickens. I did some digging, and there's a Newsweek piece that says he graduated with "high distinction...." It's an opinion piece, but it's by a Newsweek staffer. At the same time, though, we have the note above disputing the "high distinction" claim. I'm fine with leaving the disputed claim out. (I know this is definitely not Wiki policy, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that claims that redound to an a-hole's credit should be held to a higher standard of proof than that which applies to non-aholes.) That said, should this be looked into further? Scaleshombre ( talk) 19:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
this just seems like a personal attack on his character, with a gotcha topic that doesn't belong in the intro or article at all, if anything it could be better worded Wikigirl97 ( talk) 02:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
above user's article talk related questions copied from my talk page.
|
---|
what's a "scanctions"? also it just seems out of place even if there is a source for it, wtf is refusing to reject something anyways? sounds like some jewish gotcha bs to me that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikigirl97 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC) |
Wikigirl97 Can you elaborate on your "jewish gotcha bs" comment? I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article, but it might help us understand your issues a little better. Right now it seems that editing WP is the least of your problems. Scaleshombre ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the " Conservatism in the United States" template from the bottom of the article. Editor Rockypedia restored it, writing in the edit summary "there's approx. a thousand articles that describe Spencer's political stance as conservative." Most of the RS I've seen talk about Spencer's estrangement from mainstream conservatism, including his being booted from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year, and his firing from The American Conservative magazine because his views were too extreme. He may have started out as a mainstream conservative, but he's "evolved" into something very different. I think it's undue to keep the navbox on his page, and would like to get feedback on removing it. Scaleshombre ( talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No, not exactly. There are terms that describe Spencer's views more accurately -- alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, etc. Lumping him in as a conservative is undue. The article talks about his conservative roots, which is clearly appropriate and backed by RS. Including the Conservatism template, however, suggests that he's currently a significant figure in conservative politics, which is not supported by RS. It's like calling Mussolini a socialist, or Ronald Reagan a Democrat; it was true at earlier points in their careers, but it wasn't those affiliations that made them notable (or notorious, in Mussolini's case). We need to remove the template. Scaleshombre ( talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed the page's history, and I noticed that the template was first added a few weeks ago without consensus. It really should have been discussed first. Also, I'm sure it's not your intent, but the template indirectly legitimizes Spencer's views by connecting them to mainstream conservatism. If there was an encyclopedic reason to do so (i.e., RS/due weight), then I'd have no problem with it. But that's not the case here. Why should we help him when we don't have to? Scaleshombre ( talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Two examples, but pretty thin. I've changed my opinion and I don't have a problem with the category being removed. Rockypedia ( talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The debate on this page has recently been featured in a news report about Wikipedia titled " Are Jews white and is Richard Spencer a white supremacist? Wikipedia debates" and published on the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It seems this is the second such piece to be written for the newspaper (see: " The royal houses of Netanyahu and Baratheon: Inside this week's drama on Hebrew Wikipedia") by a writer called Omer Benjakob who claims to be researching Wikipedia. -- 192.118.73.36 ( talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add descriptor "writer" to lead section, as I don't believe one's ideology, that being white supremacy, counts as an occupation. DanKasich ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)User:DanKasich DanKasich ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Richard B. Spencer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Apologies, i forgot to mention what i would replace it to, which would be I think another sentence should be added below saying
"In October of 2014, Richard Spencer made the statement on his twitter: "Homosexuality has been a part of European societies and culture for millennia. It's not going away, not something to get worked up about.
using this tweet https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/528395974666764288?lang=en as a source. " Muhrarday ( talk) 06:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Richardbspencer.com is currently a boilerplate placeholder from a domain site. Archive.org shows this happened in mid-August, first through Squarespace, and then Hover. Rather than link to spam or potentially worse, it seems like it's better to remove the link until this resolves. Grayfell ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: You have reverted my edit under the pretext of "unclear if speaker was referring to *that* kind of cultural Christian". I ask you to return the wiki link back. As you can notice in the interview, Spencer then explains to Martin what he means by calling himself a "cultural Christian" ( 8:40):
Martin: What is a "cultural Christian"?
Spencer: I grew up in a Christian background, I resonate with Christianity and so on.
It clearly corresponds with the definition in Cultural Christian: "cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up."-- Russian Rocky ( talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Nina Kouprianova is not Russian American. She has immigrated to the United States and was not born in the United States. Kouprianova is Russian and probably has as much respect to the United States as Alexander Dugin. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is original research, right?
Not only that, the link is broken. I propose we strike it out. However, I know there may be certain reasons we include self-incriminating statements in Wikipedia. If there is a rule for that which is applicable, I'm all ears.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, his website did actually say that. I don't see an issue, it's his own self-description of why he left. I interpreted it as a dig (by Spencer) at Duke or academia more generally. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I make no apology for his political views but the fact remains that this is NOT how encyclopedias are written, particularly where the topic involves a living person.
There is some irony to this: His right to hold his viewpoint and express it is the same one used to malign it. Also, there's the matter that it is improbable that anyone contributing to this article's content has an entry of their own on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.69.145 ( talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017
Actually, when the subject of an article is an American White Supremist (sic), then that is EXACTLY how an encyclopedia article should begin. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white supremacist views." (I would prefer).
Or: "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an activist and speaker that espouses white nationalist views. Spencer rejects the label "white supremacist," and prefers to describe himself as an identitarian, though he is commonly understood to be a white supremacist." ...
Hm, then this seems to call into question the label. I think it's important to make clear that this is what he is.
Apart from that matter, can we remove the picture? I would prefer that we don't have a picture of this person, in case that is possible. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 14:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to Richard Spencer a white rights activist. We have updated the story to more accurately refer to him as a white supremacist."-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this revert which removed this well-sourced material:
References
Numerous other national sources have talked about his speaking engagements at various universities and the potential or actual violence that comes with them:
Some of these are already covered. I am unclear why the speaking engagements with similar lawsuits and controversy in Ohio are not relevant.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that Florida's governor has declared a state of emergency, which is attracting quite a lot of media attention, this might be worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
How should the "Views" section be ordered? A new section was just added, placing his views on the Iraq war at the top. I'm going to reorder it, but it'd be nice to get some additional feedback so this isn't just my own decision alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a minor concern. It feels rather off, sort of deliberately suggestive, to write about Spencer's opinion on Hitler the way this article does. Stating that he called things Hitler did despicable "without elaborating on which things he was referring to" is seriously suggestive. It deliberately raises the question of whether he is OK with various horrible things Hitler did. Merely stating that he said Hitler had "done things that I think are despicable" on its own impresses the general vagueness without pointing out that he didn't specify. If, in the interview, he specifically refused to go into specifics then it might be better to state that he was pressed to be more specific but refused. This makes it more clear that his lack of specificity was deliberate. But if he simply didn't specify, pointing out this lack of specificity is unnecessary and highly suggestive. If the journalist report this was taken from included this, then it should be specifically quoted to make it clear that this is a reference to a statement by another party. Otherwise, deeming it noteworthy to declare "he didn't specify" raises questions on the impartiality of the article. Plenty of people have said that Hitler and various other people have done horrible things and it's not considered noteworthy to mention that they didn't get into specifics after all. 98.197.193.213 ( talk) 00:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would go further than this. Given that Spencer has specifically denied being a "white supremacist", the same logic appears to apply; in the absence of some statement of his that confirms the dictionary definition of "supremacist", and keeping in mind the dictionary definition of "supreme", it seems to me a direct contradiction of his statement by him is necessary, or, at least, something substantially MORE than just the weakly supported opinion of some writer, group of writers, or media personalities, before the assertion of "supremacist" can be used. A "guess" is not enough, and a thought that his reference to the American people likely included only whites is really not enough, either; I am frankly very disappointed that anyone would feel that such thinking would be seriously entertained by anyone here. This nation exists as a consequence of enormous immigration from all over the globe by persons of every color and creed over four hundred years; no sane person would believe that a reference to Americans implied only one color absent total ignorance or a substantial political motive. Various groups supported the creation of racial nations on various grounds in the past, and a few such nations still exist, and although times have changed, I can't recall any of the people involved ever having been labeled racial supremacists at ANY time, then or since. I believe the entire purpose of such labeling to be entirely political, and a basis for denying Spencer any speech rights at all. As far as I am concerned, this labeling does NOT support the denial of speech rights, but it is clear that some institutions believe otherwise, and Wikipedia's contribution to that support is to be avoided. It reflects very poorly on some of the persons involved, who would never support, for example, any theory that the Muslim religion perceived its beliefs as supremacist, though in fact some of the leaders of that religion quite readily espouse just that view, and are quite open about it. 2001:5B0:47C4:D078:C818:5F20:7573:33D8 ( talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
These groups have been proven to be highly inaccurate and AWFUL sources. There’s plenty of info out there about Spencer without using those two messes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.105.160 ( talk) 03:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
remove from log. Thanks Edaham ( talk) 08:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When the discussion is always censored by a gang of Leftist Antifa thugs? LiberatorLX ( talk) 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
|