BenjiThurston (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
||
(446 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|archive_age=2|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{Ds/talk notice|restriction=1RR|topic=ap}} |
|||
{{Ds/talk notice|blp|restricting=1RR|style=brief}} |
|||
{{talk header}} |
|||
{{controversial}} |
{{controversial}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Spencer, Richard B.|1= |
|||
{{Archive basics |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} |
|||
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|importance=low}} |
|||
|counter = 4 |
|||
{{WikiProject Montana|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|MA=yes|MA-importance=low|Texas=yes|Texas-importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=C|listas=Spencer, Richard B.}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Montana|class=C|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|fascism=yes|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=low|MA=yes|Texas=yes|Texas-importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Trolling}} |
|||
{{Press |
{{Press |
||
| subject = talk page |
| subject = talk page |
||
Line 24: | Line 18: | ||
| accessdate = September 9, 2017 |
| accessdate = September 9, 2017 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|1RR=yes|topic=ap}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|blp|1RR=yes|style=brief}} |
|||
{{Archive basics |
|||
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|counter = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Trolling}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 7 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
||
|algo = old(61d) |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30 |units=days|small=yes}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Activists|class=C}} |
|||
{{Old moves |
|||
== RfC on size of lead == |
|||
| list = |
|||
{{closed rfc top|result=<small>[[WP:NAC|Non-admin closure]]</small> The responses, after more than a month, run very close, with the No side having a tiny arithmetic majority.</br> The question posed is simple, neutral, and straightforward, and thus in accordance to [[WP:RFCST]]. No objections to it being somehow wrongly tabled can be accepted.</br> The question can only be interpreted as being asked ''within the context of Wikipedia policy''; it cannot be assessed on the basis of personal taste ("too long?", "too short?", etc), since relevant policy already exists: The article, as it currently stands, contains roughly some forty thousand characters, with number of spaces included in the count (roughly around thirty-five thousand excluding spaces). According to [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]], the recommended length of an article with {{tq|more than 30,000 characters}} is {{tq|three or four paragraphs}}. Admittedly this is trying for a ratio between apples to oranges ("paragraphs" to "characters") but a reasonable examination of the currently extant four paragraphs of the lead section reveals that they are not extraordinary in length. The question therefore can only be answered with a '''No''' (the article lead is not "too long").</br>There were many suggestions and comments about what the lead section should contain but text quality and content were not, of course, a concern of this RfC and should be discussed separately. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) }} |
|||
* Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 26 January 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 1|Proposed move: Richard Spencer (white supremacist)}} |
|||
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 26 October 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 26 October 2017}} |
|||
'''Question:''' Is the article lead too long for the length of the article? '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 02:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* MRV, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''Endorsed''', 3 November 2017, [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 November]] |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer, '''No consensus''', 2 November 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 2 November 2017}} |
|||
====Yes==== |
|||
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (activist), '''Not moved''', 28 November 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4|Requested move 28 November 2017}} |
|||
*'''Yes''', way too long. [[WP:MOSLEAD]] states plainly: {{tq|"The lead should stand on its own as a '''concise overview''' of the article's topic...As a general rule of thumb, '''a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs''' and be carefully sourced as appropriate."}} This speaks for itself. Not to mention the article subject's notability is as a fringe figure who was relatively unknown until late 2016, and even at this point, he's nowhere near a household name. He has notability, but certainly not the kind of notability or life of "deeds" that would make for enough to justify the size of lead that exists in this article currently. A "concise overview" of the article subject's life equals about a thimble full of information. That's not what we have here. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* RM, Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist), '''No consensus''', 8 December 2017, {{section link|Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 5|Requested move 8 December 2017}} |
|||
*'''Yes''', it's a not hugely too long, but some trimming is appropriate. '''Two areas need to be cut down.''' '''(1)''' First is the neo-Nazi paragraph, which can be written more concisely and bluntly to say he's a neo-Nazi (with no milquetoast "described as" qualifier), he's given the Nazi salute in public and given neo-Nazi speeches. A bit more than that is appropriate but is it really leadworthy that one of his neo-Nazi salutes was to Milo at a karaoke bar? Really? '''(2)''' The second area is about Charlottesville and the fallout. For the purposes of the lead section can't we just say that the rally turned violent? And has the lawsuit against him gained so much attention to warrant inclusion in a 4-paragraph summary of his life? Let alone specifically naming the plaintiffs' attorneys?! Look at the cited sources. The attorneys' names were only included in a single article because they were quoted. I mean seriously. Now, I raised these specific concerns in two previous threads and was ignored. Then editors who were watching the page object that this RfC isn't specific enough. I'm feeling stonewalled. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
*Broadly, '''Yes''', but ''a)'' it doesn't matter how I vote, as there is not a hope in hell of this RfC settling anything since it makes no specific recommendations ''b)'' It could well be the lack of clarity and coherence rather than the 'raw' length which is the underlying problem, but trimming might be a good step towards 'clearing out the stables'. I partially endorse Dr. Fleischman's point that the 'neo-Nazi' connection could be more concise and might be more 'punchy' without naming instances (Milo salute?) - Charlotteville and Spencer's role there could be clearer and European bans seems very muddled. Unless there is some clear authorative source for WHY we in Europe don't want him - it would probably be better to simply record the existence of the bans in the lead - and leave the details for the body. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Qualified Yes''', the portion of the introduction about Hungary and being banned from entering various European nations should be moved as they don't belong in the lead[[User:Zubin12|Zubin12]] ([[User talk:Zubin12|talk]]) 05:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes, much too long'''... '''none of the following needs to be in the lead.''' This content needs to be in the relevant sections of the article, instead. |
|||
In early 2016, Spencer was filmed giving the Nazi salute to Milo Yiannopoulos in a karaoke bar.[13] In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews.[8] In response to his cry "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!", a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis' Nuremberg rallies.[14][15] His appropriation of Nazi rhetoric on these and various other occasions has attracted the scorn and ridicule of the press.[citation needed] |
|||
but has been sued in federal court by attorneys Roberta Kaplan and Karen Dunn, who allege that Spencer acted as a "gang boss" at Charlottesville and incited the Charlottesville killing.[19][20] Since then, several of Spencer's speaking engagements on university campuses were denied or cancelled, with university officials citing the violence in Charlottesville. Spencer sued Michigan State University[21] and threatened legal action against the University of Florida. After a string of cancellations and disruptions of his events in 2018, Spencer suspended his college tour indefinitely.[22] |
|||
While in Hungary, Spencer was mocked by the Hungarian Népszabadság for his claim to be a "racial European," which the newspaper said had no basis in European history; Spencer had dismissed the more distinctively Hungarian (as opposed to white) racial identity as a "fantasy," and called for "European unity" through a new polity resembling the Roman Empire.[27] In the aftermath of the controversy, nationalist president Viktor Orbán banned and condemned Spencer.[28] The current government of Poland—often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state—has also banned[29] and formally condemned Spencer, citing Spencer's Nazi rhetoric and the Nazis' genocide of Slavic "Untermenschen" during World War II.[30] |
|||
[[User:Peter K Burian|Peter K Burian]] ([[User talk:Peter K Burian|talk]]) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''' {{sbb}} agree with Dr.F for the most part. <sup>cinco de </sup>[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====No==== |
|||
*'''No?''' Per below this doesn't seem like a great way to fix the problem. Is this is really just about the [[template:lead too long]] tag? If so, actionable changes need to be proposed. "Too long" isn't actionable for an article this controversial. Templates aren't badges of shame, so this template should be removed until something specific can be agreed upon. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Actionable changes have been proposed. They just weren't proposed as part of the RfC, unfortunately. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. It.... is four paragraphs? And the first two are very short ones, even. The lead seems about right to me. If you want to trim something, be specific about what you want to remove; but I don't feel it's anywhere remotely close to the length where we could justify removing stuff simply due to length constraints. The lead-too-long template should, obviously, be removed. I also think you're seriously underselling Spencer's notability (the heavy, high-profile mainstream sourcing for each aspect of the lead shows that he has attracted a lot of coverage - and the fact that I was able to find significant ''acacdemic'' coverage above speaks for itself.) The fact that much of this coverage is comparatively recent isn't a valid argument, especially when "recent" in this case covers over a year (it seems like he catapulted to fame in early 2017 after the one-two punch of the Nazi-rhetoric rally combined with, well, literally being punched and the ensuing debate.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Per MOSLEAD: "a concise overview". Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Definition of concise: marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". The lead is anything but that. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 04:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:MOSLEAD]] also (as you know, because you cited it verbatim above) gives a specific guideline for how we should interpret the 'concise' requirement in this case, which is "no more than four paragraphs." Bluntly, it's obvious some people have objections to the ''specific content'' of the lead, which is fine (and should be raised in their own sections), but the suggestion that this lead is too long strikes me as baseless. This is an appropriately-sized lead for a topic of this prominence, with this degree of broad coverage. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - There is some detail that ''could'' be trimmed out, but it's not trivial detail. I agree with others that an RfC is not the best way forward.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 13:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Ha ha, that reads like a yes to me. {{smiley}} --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Does the detail improve or hinder readers' understanding of the subject? In my view, it improves it and any edits I would make would be for style, clarity, and concision.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Do the names of the plaintiffs' lawyers improve readers' understanding of Richard Spencer? Come on. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - Procedural, since no options but '''Yes''' or '''No''' are given, with no proposal on what to change, remove or replace. [[User:Dave Dial|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:Dave Dial|talk]]) 18:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Dave Dial}}, proposals were made in the "Neo-Nazi" and "Charlottesville" sections above and included in my !vote. Unfortunately these proposals didn't make it into the RfC itself. You're invited to weigh in on them. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Try fixing my proposal below. Some things can be removed or reworded, some should be moved into other sections. I don't have the experience in how to go about it, but will try to keep on an eye on the progress. I will be gone soon for some hours. Grandkids and such. [[User:Dave Dial|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:Dave Dial|talk]]) 18:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*{{sbb}} '''No'''. Lead length isn't a problem here; it's well within the boundaries set by [[MOS:LEAD]]. The language could use improvement; it harps on certain details quite unnecessarily. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 05:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - Length isn't the problem. Some of the language could be improved however, as other users indicate. [[User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] ([[User talk:Steeletrap|talk]]) 22:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - as above - no problem with the length, but it needs trimming. For example, as a summary it is enough to say he was banned from entering some EU countries for his racist views. Which countries and why specifically is an article body discussion. I don't think the results of the overarching question posed by this RfC should prevent editors from boldly altering the article lede if they think there's a problem with it. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No / malformed RfC''': the question is too vague. The lead could be tightened but it's not "too long" for the size of the article. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 00:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
*I don't think this is going to help. This is a very simple question which doesn't provide room for meaty discussion, and without discussion, it's just voting. Could the lede stand to be trimmed? Maybe? Without explaining what, exactly, would be removed, there's nothing to work with. There is no good answer to a question this simplistic, and trying to shunt editors into '''yes/no''' columns is inappropriate and unworkable. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I was trying to make the question as neutral as possible because of the tension in the discussion(s) above the RfC on this very subject. Do you have a suggestion how it could be better worded before anyone else ends up here and !votes? '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that a specific RFC on "should we take this part out?" or "do we devote too much text to this aspect?" would be more productive. If you can't identify any one specific part you feel you could successfully argue for trimming, then the lead is obviously not too long; conversely, if it's too long, you should be easily able to find either a specific thing you want to trim ("remove this text" or "reword this part to be less verbose") or a specific aspect that doesn't belong in the lead ("should we talk less about [part]"). Trying to make an RFC neutrally-worded is good, but trying to make it entirely ''uncontroversial'' like this is bad, since the whole point is to resolve a controversy over article content that we've failed to resolve through discussion ourselves. You've neutralized it to the point where it barely proposes anything actionable. It's fine to be more specific in terms of "I propose making this change to the article" as long as you word it neutrally (I usually put my arguments for ''why'' I want to make the change in my !vote, to be safe.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, thank you for explaining that better than I did. While I think this RFC is rocky at best, I also agree this could benefit from a broader discussion, so in the spirit of collaboration... |
|||
::::The lede should summarize the body of the article, but right now it contains a lot of information which isn't in the body. The information about the countries he's banned from jumps out at me in this regard. This should be detailed in the body, and only summarized in the lede afterwards. This is [[Wikipedia:Summary style|standard practice]], and helps with readability. |
|||
::::As I've said before, I think a majority of sources published after the Unite the Right rally which discuss Spencer also mention Unite the Right, and most of those also mention Heather Heyer's death (often indirectly, such as calling it "deadly"). This, to me suggests that it has become a defining association, and the lawsuit also supports this. Even if this weren't the case, mentioning why the rally is significant just seems like good explanatory writing. ''We'' may know all about it, but a few extra words for those who don't know or don't fully remember really helps the article make sense. |
|||
::::This is part of the problem. Each of these four paragraphs is there for a good reason, even if it's not obvious, and even if I agree with trimming some of them heavily, we need to go through this more comprehensively to avoid being dogmatic about lede length. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 04:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: Well, it could be trimmed. People are supposed to read the article to get specific details, and the lead is supposed to be an overview. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph, which says he has been called a Neo-Nazi and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric is probably good enough. At that point, you've summarized the Nazi-related aspects of the article, and you don't have to give specific details about when and where he gave Nazi salutes. I'd focus on that level of detail and leave specifics to the body. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 12:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::The 'European countries' seems over detailed - and at times trying to infer things which it cannot back-up (eg characterising Polish Govt - to infer that he's too far-right even for them? Or what?). If the Polish ban is deemed lead-worthy, it should simply give govt reason - or RS analysis, but not inference. It probably isn't lead worthy and the bans could be summarised to a sentence or two. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 17:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Note'''. This RfC is obsolete as I have significantly cut down the lede already in a hope to reach a consensus. [[User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] ([[User talk:Steeletrap|talk]]) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
== BLP policy violation in opening paragraph == |
|||
== I´ve tried to create new categories for people deported from Iceland and Hungary == |
|||
If he explicitly rejects the label white supremacist in favor of white nationalist, it doesn't matter if you put a reference or not, the BLP policy suggests its not a question of defamation, its a question of living people deciding not to have it say something. |
|||
so please don´t delete them, even though they´re currently highlighted in red I think an administrator needs to approve them. [[User:StrongALPHA|StrongALPHA]] ([[User talk:StrongALPHA|talk]]) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not disputing any of the statements. I'm just saying having those two back to back like that makes it really obvious the Biography of Living People policy isn't being followed. |
|||
== It is my opinion that the Antisemitism sidebar should be removed == |
|||
Why not indicate that he is considered to be a white supremacist, rather than stately directly that he is one? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.204.172.194|107.204.172.194]] ([[User talk:107.204.172.194#top|talk]]) 03:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:The BLP policy requires that we write about living people only in ways which are clearly and strictly supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Spencer as a white supremacist. Therefore, whether or not he prefers that terminology, we will use it. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 03:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Not because he hasn´t said a number of Antisemitic thing, but because it is not even a prominent element within a his writtings or ideology from what I can tell. [[User:StrongALPHA|StrongALPHA]] ([[User talk:StrongALPHA|talk]]) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
How many of these "reliable sources" understand the different nuances between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist"? I'd bet that most of them consider these to be synonyms, but to be more intellectually rigorous, a white nationalist would say merely that the other "races" should be kept out of his nation, with the white supremacist going further in saying that the white race is superior and/or ought to rule over the other races. I strongly oppose both of these positions and personally suspect that Spencer is probably actually the latter, but IMO Wikipedia ought to follow Unsigned's suggestion of saying "he is ''considered'' to be a white supremacist" if it wants to appear credible. [[User:DanSSwing|DanSSwing]] ([[User talk:DanSSwing|talk]]) 14:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|How many of these "reliable sources" understand the different nuances between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist"?}} Most, if not all of them. Note that the former are frequently considered by expert analysts to be a subset of the latter [https://books.google.com/books?id=GyUhOLrLL_UC&dq=Another+America:+The+Politics+of+Race+and+Blame.&source=gbs_navlinks_s] [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_New_White_Nationalism_in_America.html?id=HB1wyFPRGm4C]. Others never make the connection explicit, but nonetheless accuse white nationalists of the same behaviors as white supremacists [https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/08/the-new-white-nationalism-in-america-its-challenge-to-integration] [https://web.archive.org/web/20070202193340/http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-12/16wise.cfm]. |
|||
:{{tq|but to be more intellectually rigorous}} White supremacists/nationalists of all sort are anything but "intellectually rigorous" else they wouldn't be white supremacists. |
|||
:{{tq|with the white supremacist going further in saying that the white race is superior and/or ought to rule over the other races.}} Richard Spencer has repeatedly and explicitly argued that the "white race" (remember if you want to be a Wikipedian that there is no such thing as a "white race") is superior. |
|||
:{{tq|IMO Wikipedia ought to follow Unsigned's suggestion of saying "he is considered to be a white supremacist" if it wants to appear credible.}} [[WP:ASSERT|Our policy]] is not to state facts as opinions, no matter how butthurt nazis get over it. I may be paraphrasing a bit, there. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:This is partly because i do not view him as neo nazi (to addres @TrickshotsBSYT point at the top), someone who is inspired by the German Conservative Revolution and various strands of fascism, but Neonazi is a far too narrow way of framing his ideological outlook. [[User:StrongALPHA|StrongALPHA]] ([[User talk:StrongALPHA|talk]]) 10:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: |
::I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The man is an openly anti-Semitic white supremacist and, contrary to the personal opinion of {{U|StrongALPHA}} there are reliable sources that describe him as a neo-nazi. Regardless ''being a neo-nazi'' is not the only way in which a conservative ethno-nationalist might be an active force of antisemitism. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
::: [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] is absolutely right here. The attempt at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Richard_B._Spencer the BLP noticeboard] to sanitize Spencer's image largely ignored the fact that Spencer himself (and maybe a few other white supremacists) is the only one saying "I'm not a Nazi/white supremacist" et al., and reliable sources do say that he is, as recently as an article from October 2023 (I added that one as a source). [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Citation 18 doesn't support claim == |
|||
::Bottom line: I visited this page after reading a Facebook post that mentioned him because I wanted to see if he really IS a white supremacist. In today's world, many people consider anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton to be a white supremacist. If someone can actually provide a quote from him showing that he believes the white "race" to be superior, I can't imagine why you wouldn't add it to this page as evidence in support of the lead sentence. If he is a white supremacist, then why not expose him using evidence and not just name-calling? Unfortunately, opening with the claim that he is a white supremacist but then failing to support it in the rest of the article--in fact, the article is full of his claims that he is NOT a white supremacist--damages Wikipedia's credibility. [[User:DanSSwing|DanSSwing]] ([[User talk:DanSSwing|talk]]) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tq|If someone can actually provide a quote from him showing that he believes the white "race" to be superior}} [https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/nov/06/gary-younge-interviews-richard-spencer-africans-have-benefited-from-white-supremacy "Africans have benefitted from their experience with white supremacy. They (African slaves) benefited from being in a nation other than their own."] |
|||
:::{{tq|failing to support it in the rest of the article--in fact, the article is full of his claims that he is NOT a white supremacist--damages Wikipedia's credibility.}} Spencer's own claims about his views are so obviously false and self-serving that his [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer RationalWiki article] is sarcastically written from that exact POV. |
|||
:::Ok, I'm gonna tell you something important, so please read this carefully: If you think Richard Spencer is a trustworthy source for claims of fact, ''even if those claims of fact are in reference to his own beliefs'', then you are [[WP:CIR|incompetent to edit this project]], because you lack the basic critical thinking skills necessary to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources. I mean, seriously. You think Wikipedia is lying and Spencer is not? That's just so incredibly stupid that it barely merits this response. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::"You think Wikipedia is lying and Spencer is not?" Yes. People who edit Wikipedia often lie. I see no reason why Spencer would lie about the content of his already quite unpopular beliefs or why he warrants the label "white supremacist" simply because he has been labeled as such by journalists. Public figures are, as a rule, reliable sources about the content and nature their public beliefs. Spencer's self-description as "white nationalist" should be preferred to the journalist-alleged "white supremacist". [[User:Eharding|Eharding]] ([[User talk:Eharding|talk]]) 22:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
citation 18 doesn't support the claim that Spencer voted for Biden. [[Special:Contributions/73.26.189.174|73.26.189.174]] ([[User talk:73.26.189.174|talk]]) 03:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::''People who edit Wikipedia often lie'' |
|||
:we do not say he did. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Utterly irrelevant, since it's reliable sources being used in Wikipedia we're talking about here. No reframing the question, please. |
|||
::It also does not support the claim that he "supports" biden and is against the "alt-right" now. The quoted source is a random right-wing opinion/blog article. [[User:PhDaemon|PhDaemon]] ([[User talk:PhDaemon|talk]]) 08:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::''I see no reason why Spencer would lie about the content of his already quite unpopular beliefs'' |
|||
:::::Strangely enough, Wikipedia doesn't go by your personal [[Divine fallacy|argument from incredulity]] in assessing what goes in and what stays. Not mention that Spencer has an obvious reason to spin his beliefs -- whether you can imagine it or not -- namely a way of making his beliefs more acceptable for mass consumption. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hmm, maybe that's why my proposal to add [https://www.newsweek.com/charles-manson-quotes-madness-and-cruelty-americas-most-infamous-mass-murderer-716587 "60 times the pope"] Charles Manson's infobox hasn't gained any traction. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: |
|||
#CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::I assume you mean [https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/what-was-alt-right this source], which is published by [[Tablet (magazine)]] in their 'News & Politics' section. This doesn't appear to be a opinion piece, and the author, Joshua Tait, is a PhD historian who has contributed to published academic work specifically on far-right politics in the US ({{isbn|9780190877590}}). Here's the specific relevant quote from the source: {{tq|In that respect, [Richard Hanania's] evolution has mirrored the strange career of Spencer who, in the wake of Charlottesville, has attempted to distance himself from his leadership of the alt-right, rebranding himself with public statements attacking Trump, and voicing support for NATO and the Biden White House.}} The current wording in the article seems like a reasonable summary of this source. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Inclusion in Public Speaking section == |
|||
:::: {{ping|Grayfell}}, you make some good points, but I do feel some recent edits (not yours) misrepresent what Tait is actually saying in that piece. He's saying the alt-right collapsed after Charlottesville (one could debate that, I guess, but I personally feel that's Tait's opinion alone) and so it's not so much that Spencer is no longer a leader of the alt-right - it's that there is no alt-right to lead anymore. At least, that's what Tait is saying. It's easy for Spencer to disavow a "movement" that largely lost all of its support and momentum. The adherents simply "reinvented themselves as centrists", which are Tait's words. It was a rebranding because the alt-right branding, in their view, had become toxic. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Update tag == |
|||
Can this event be included in the Public Speaking section? It was covered by several major news outlets. See links here: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/auburn-richard-spencer-protests/index.html CNN],[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/ Washington Post], [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/19/524683153/white-nationalist-richard-spencers-speech-at-auburn-sparks-protests-arrests NPR], [https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/auburn_pays_29000_to_settle_ri.html al.com] |
|||
{{ping|CzarJobKhaya}} Hello. Per [[#Lead section is seriously outdated]] above, we can only update the article with reliable sources. If you know of such sources, or wish to suggest other actionable changes, please do so, otherwise this tag is not helpful and is unlikely to lead to improvements to the article. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Davidmith|Davidmith]] ([[User talk:Davidmith|talk]]) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know of any reliable sources that could be used to update the article, but it still feels outdated to me. My only intention with the tag was informing the reader rather than spurring potential edits. Thanks. [[User:CzarJobKhaya|CzarJobKhaya]] ([[User talk:CzarJobKhaya|talk]]) 23:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== The nature of the alleged abuse by Spencer against Kouprianova == |
|||
::The thing is, we're only permitted to inform the reader about what is published in reliable sources. Anything else violates our core policy of [[WP:OR|no original research]]. I hope that makes sense. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 00:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Intro is wrong. == |
|||
In the 'Personal Life' section I tried to expand the reference to Kouprianova's allegations of Spencer's "abusive" behaviour towards her by including a quote from her divorce filings included in the Buzzfeed story included in the cited BBC article which refers to “physically, emotionally, verbally and financially abusive” actions. This inclusion of mine was deleted and the user whom redacted it claimed that the "quote [doesn't improve] anything, as it's basically saying he was abusive in general, which is what was said before". I don't see how this is the case seeing as a broad reference to Spencer being 'abusive' carries far different weight than a quote which details not just physical abuse, which is obviously far more severe, but a whole range of other significant forms of abuse. The term 'abusive' doesn't seem encompassing enough for the sheer level of abuse Kouprianova has accused Spencer of, certainly not physical abuse. I adamantly think my edit should be reinstated. |
|||
"neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist." Have any Wikipedia overlords actually listened to any of his views? He's literally none of those things. [[Special:Contributions/2601:341:8100:B420:F826:B639:CE03:F8CE|2601:341:8100:B420:F826:B639:CE03:F8CE]] ([[User talk:2601:341:8100:B420:F826:B639:CE03:F8CE|talk]]) 01:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Orlando2996|Orlando2996]] ([[User talk: Orlando2996 |talk]]) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (AET) |
|||
:We do not make that decision (read [[wp:or]]), [[wp:rs]] and and we just repeat them. If it is false take it up with them. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 09:32, 19 June 2024
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I´ve tried to create new categories for people deported from Iceland and Hungary
so please don´t delete them, even though they´re currently highlighted in red I think an administrator needs to approve them. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the Antisemitism sidebar should be removed
Not because he hasn´t said a number of Antisemitic thing, but because it is not even a prominent element within a his writtings or ideology from what I can tell. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is partly because i do not view him as neo nazi (to addres @TrickshotsBSYT point at the top), someone who is inspired by the German Conservative Revolution and various strands of fascism, but Neonazi is a far too narrow way of framing his ideological outlook. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The man is an openly anti-Semitic white supremacist and, contrary to the personal opinion of StrongALPHA there are reliable sources that describe him as a neo-nazi. Regardless being a neo-nazi is not the only way in which a conservative ethno-nationalist might be an active force of antisemitism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Simonm223 is absolutely right here. The attempt at the BLP noticeboard to sanitize Spencer's image largely ignored the fact that Spencer himself (and maybe a few other white supremacists) is the only one saying "I'm not a Nazi/white supremacist" et al., and reliable sources do say that he is, as recently as an article from October 2023 (I added that one as a source). Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this suggestion. The man is an openly anti-Semitic white supremacist and, contrary to the personal opinion of StrongALPHA there are reliable sources that describe him as a neo-nazi. Regardless being a neo-nazi is not the only way in which a conservative ethno-nationalist might be an active force of antisemitism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Citation 18 doesn't support claim
citation 18 doesn't support the claim that Spencer voted for Biden. 73.26.189.174 (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- we do not say he did. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I assume you mean this source, which is published by Tablet (magazine) in their 'News & Politics' section. This doesn't appear to be a opinion piece, and the author, Joshua Tait, is a PhD historian who has contributed to published academic work specifically on far-right politics in the US (ISBN 9780190877590). Here's the specific relevant quote from the source:
In that respect, [Richard Hanania's] evolution has mirrored the strange career of Spencer who, in the wake of Charlottesville, has attempted to distance himself from his leadership of the alt-right, rebranding himself with public statements attacking Trump, and voicing support for NATO and the Biden White House.
The current wording in the article seems like a reasonable summary of this source. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)- @Grayfell:, you make some good points, but I do feel some recent edits (not yours) misrepresent what Tait is actually saying in that piece. He's saying the alt-right collapsed after Charlottesville (one could debate that, I guess, but I personally feel that's Tait's opinion alone) and so it's not so much that Spencer is no longer a leader of the alt-right - it's that there is no alt-right to lead anymore. At least, that's what Tait is saying. It's easy for Spencer to disavow a "movement" that largely lost all of its support and momentum. The adherents simply "reinvented themselves as centrists", which are Tait's words. It was a rebranding because the alt-right branding, in their view, had become toxic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mean this source, which is published by Tablet (magazine) in their 'News & Politics' section. This doesn't appear to be a opinion piece, and the author, Joshua Tait, is a PhD historian who has contributed to published academic work specifically on far-right politics in the US (ISBN 9780190877590). Here's the specific relevant quote from the source:
Update tag
@CzarJobKhaya: Hello. Per #Lead section is seriously outdated above, we can only update the article with reliable sources. If you know of such sources, or wish to suggest other actionable changes, please do so, otherwise this tag is not helpful and is unlikely to lead to improvements to the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know of any reliable sources that could be used to update the article, but it still feels outdated to me. My only intention with the tag was informing the reader rather than spurring potential edits. Thanks. CzarJobKhaya (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is, we're only permitted to inform the reader about what is published in reliable sources. Anything else violates our core policy of no original research. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Intro is wrong.
"neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist." Have any Wikipedia overlords actually listened to any of his views? He's literally none of those things. 2601:341:8100:B420:F826:B639:CE03:F8CE (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- We do not make that decision (read wp:or), wp:rs and and we just repeat them. If it is false take it up with them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)