Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 8 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus – No change in outcome from last discussion — JFG ^talk 11:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist) – Per WP:INITS and previous discussion, Richard B. Spencer is unnacceptable according to established Wikipedia policy, as the subject is rarely referred to with a middle initial. A parenthetical is the next obvious choice, and "white supremacist" is entire reason the subject has a Wikipedia article in the first place, it is how he is described in the first sentence of the article, on the Richard Spencer disambiguation page, it is well sourced, and was the topic of an exhaustive RfC in which overwhelming consensus agreed that the primary descriptor should be "white supremacist." Rockypedia (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of the move request of 26 October 2017, in which Rockypedia significantly participated, which was closed as no consensus with a detailed rationale, and which survived a move review here. The original discussion is at Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4#Requested move 26 October 2017. - Station1 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Support votes

• Support -- we've established that it's the core component of his notability, that it's the way to refer to him in the first sentence, etc. Having overcome all the objections to those elements, we should similarly get beyond the same objections in connection with the article name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Fourth times the charm. Per anything I may or may not have said in the past move discussions - sources are reliable, consensus among them overwhelming, white supremacist not a contentious term for the person, etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The article title, when using a parenthetical, should reflect the content of the article. Spencer is notable for being a white supremacist, first and foremost. That was decided in the exhaustive RfC about the first line in the article and it was decided by overwhelming consensus. The fact that some editors are squeamish about putting the exact same phrase in the article title should have no bearing on the final decision. This is a policy decision, plain and simple. If it's good enough for the lead sentence, it's good enough for the title. There are other articles already using the same parenthetical:

1. Don Black (white supremacist)
2. James Ellison (white supremacist)
3. Paul Fromm (white supremacist)
4. David Lane (white supremacist)
5. Terry Long (white supremacist)

so it's not like we're breaking new ground here. Rockypedia (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Those articles are exceptions. Most articles in Category:American white supremacists use middle names or initials to disambiguate. For example, John G. Crommelin, David Wayne Hull, James W. "Catfish" Cole, William Daniel Johnson, Walter Burgwyn Jones, Robert E. Kuttner, Robert Jay Mathews, John Trotwood Moore, Christopher Columbus Nash, William Luther Pierce, Thomas E. Watson, Alfred Holt Stone, David Theophilus Stafford, Gerald L. K. Smith, William Benjamin Smith, Michael W. Ryan, and William E. Riker. Some others use slightly less derogatory qualifiers, such as "lawyer", "congressman" or "criminal". (Incidentally, Paul Fromm and Don Black were both moved from other titles recently.) Station1 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support The media generally does not use "B. Spencer" in their coverage, and has overwhelmingly referred to him as a white supremacist, which is what he is primarily known for by the public at large. There is nothing unclear or biased about using that phrase as a disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support would prefer just plain Richard Spencer, as this one is far more notable than the gaggle of historical cruft currently at the disambiguation page, but if we have to move it then this is the most obvious choice. #1, we have 5 examples above where this is used as a disambiguator, so the clams of BLP violations and NPOV are debunked, you can't WP:CRYBLP when it has been used already that often. #2, leopards may at times change their spots, but the memory of those spots is long. A virulent, violent race agitator may some day come to his senses, but the notoriety of who he was and what he stood for that made him so notable will never be erased from history. "Richard Spencer, the white supremacist" is how he will be remembered, forever. #3, the "B" is used in sources far, far less than the plain firstname lastname, a fact easily sown by Google. Finally, as the last RM on this particular suggestion closed as "no consensus", it is never "too soon" to try again; that is the very nature of "no consensus". TheValeyard (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: We're subject to constant efforts by apologists and extremists to rebrand the subject as anything other than what he is. The right and encyclopedic solution is to describe him clearly, accurately, and succinctly. He’s only notable as a white supremacist. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The current title is wrong because it is not the common name. zzz (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support (again) In spite of the recent no-consensus close, I will consistently support the disambiguation of this article's subject by using the parenthetical (White Nationalist) or (White Supremacist) (with preference for the latter based on NPOV and not giving undue weight to promotional terminology). Relevant policies include: 1) WP:DAB "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." 2)WP:NCPDAB "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right...Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term." 3)WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" - All of which unambiguously support the use of sources like this which rarely make mention of the subject of this article without using the term "white supremacist", in many cases directly after or directly before the subject's name. Reiterating my previous point, such disambiguation would appear in the search bar, making it easier for our readers to arrive at the subject (or not arrive at it if they are looking for something else). There's no reason for Wikipedia to be less unabashedly clear than the sources we use. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support For ease of finding the article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per this CNN clarification: "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" source. Plenty of (white supremacist) disambig examples are given above, so it's nothing unusual. In addition, the very first sentence of the article describes Spencer as a "white supremacist". Unless we are prepared to change the article, -- which is unlikely, -- this disambig is the most natural one. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

• Oppose As stated in the earlier discussions, I do not feel that choosing a title based on a person's belief system (fully aware that there are some titles that currently do this; another wrong doesn't make a right) is in the spirit of neutrality, nor is it necessary when the project can use the middle initial, despite its imperfectness. He is a white supremacist with horrid views who deserves all the scorn he gets (why isn't Nazi punching an article?), but I would have preferred to see an RfC where we could choose among the possibilities and rank 1st, 2nd, etc...choice. These "one choice in rapid succession" discussions seems designed to bring about weariness rather than consensus. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Did we not have a similar discussion before? I can't find the archive. Anyway, he is often described as a "white nationalist" in reliable third-party sources, and he may change his mind/politics at some point. If this goes though, he may use this as a fundraising opportunity, portraying himself as a victim (sic), and I don't think he needs more money--so let's not play into his own hands.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a suitable disambiguator here, we don't need to use a less-neutral one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. This exact same move was proposed less than two months ago, it was debated at length and closed as no consensus, and subsequently it passed a move review. You can't just keep proposing the same thing over and over until you get the result you want. Please could an admin close this and maybe impose a moratorium. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  If it was "no consensus", it's not inappropriate to open a new request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree. It is inappropriate to open a new request so soon, with no new evidence or any difference of argument. The previous request was exhaustively discussed, even to the point of move review, and editors have better things to do than continually revisiting the same questions over and over. Requesting it again in 6 months to a year would be a different thing, but to me this just looks like a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close. While I believe the article should be moved as proposed, I agree with Amakuru and think this request comes too soon on the heels of the last one. Nothing has changed since then and there is zero chance we'll reach a consensus to move, so we shouldn't waste everyone's time. Again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  So you support this proposal based on its merits, but oppose it based on its timing? Bradv 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a fair summary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – we don't usually use someones belief system as a disambiguator, especially when there are other disambiguation choices available. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I stand corrected, there are many other articles that do use the disambiguation white supremacist. However, Richard B. Spencer does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME as he is not known with his middle initial, so a new title should be decided with disambiguation. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

    His middle initial has been used by The NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, MSN, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, The Chicago Tribune, and Getty Images, among others, as pointed out in the previous discussion. Station1 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - clear violation of WP:BLP which leaves Wikipedia open to ridicule. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parenthetical qualifiers are warranted only when subjects, who have common names, are not known for using middle names, middle initials or nicknames, such as the five men exemplified above with the qualifier "(white supremacist)". In the case at hand, "Richard B. Spencer" is subject's pen name and his books and other writings are all published under the name with the middle initial "B." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This keeps popping up at WP:RM. Stop it already. Amakuru and DrFleischman are correct: it is simply disruptive now. Srnec (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A decision was already reached a mere month ago. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the discussion was closed without consensus, so no decision was reached a month ago. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Zigzig20s' "strong oppose" vote reminds me of a clip from A Few Good Men. Anyway, regarding the actual content of that vote, "he is often described as a "white nationalist" was raised in the exhaustive RfC, and consensus determined that "white supremacist" was more accurate than "white nationalist", so that issue was already settled. As for "he may use this as a fundraising opportunity", I can't recall a single Wikipedia issue being decided based on what the article's subject would do financially as a result of the discussion, and so I don't think that vote presents a single valid argument to back itself up. Rockypedia (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually came to this talk page by accident (I was just reading the article when I thought that maybe I should check the talk page the huge toolbar was referring to) but just from what you wrote here I feel like you are a bit too (politically) charged to be able to discuss this properly. From what I gathered after reading the talk page for 3 minutes the oppose side has a lot more arguments than you've described in the post above. I think you should take a break to cool your head, but that's just my opinion, man. P.S. I oppose the renaming based on the fact that we already have a suitable disambiguator and the one you propose does not appear to sound neutral at all. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There were an extensive RfC about the term "white supremacist" and whether or not it's neutral, and the overwhelming consensus was that it is neutral and well-sourced, so I don't see how your last point can be considered to be based in reality. Also, there's five other articles that use that particular disambiguator, so why should Spencer's article be the one exception? Rockypedia (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am looking at the vote right now and it seems like the vote is split 50:50. I don't think you can call that overwhelming consensus, but what do i know. Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the RfC over the first line in the lead; that wasn't anywhere near 50-50. Rockypedia (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A discussion on using the term in the article is not the same discussion as we're having now regarding the article title, first off. Second, those articles cited were created years ago, opinions and people change over time. Just because something has "always been that way" doesn't mean it is rubber-stamped "correct". Terry Long is a fractured stub of an article and should be deleted outright, while the rest should look into what else could be used to disambiguate. ValarianB (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"it seems like the vote is split 50:50"

It isn't though is it? Assuming the Request to move is valid (which I think it is as guidelines on the subject do not recommend against reopening such a discussion), all of the votes opposing based on the recentness of the previous request can be discounted. That leaves 4 opposing votes. One of which is a vague wave at BLP which overlooks WP:RS, two which cite naming conventions but erroneously assume that more "neutral" titles are by default better than contentious ones and one vote which similarly supports the use of a middle initial rather than commit a potential neutrality faux pas. All of these issues have been addressed in RfCs not related to the title change - some of which went to policy level notice boards and were found to have passed WP:NWP:RSWP:V guidelines. None of these votes come close to challenging the supporting objective, which is to make the article clearer, more easily searchable and more informative based on reliable sources; with secondary reasons pointing to naming conventions in other articles. Edaham (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, leaving the procedural issue aside, the support votes are themselves of dubious validity because they are based on a false claim in the nomination; namely, that the term "Richard B. Spencer" is "rarely referred to with a middle initial". That is not the case - it is actually used in a lot of sources, including third party respectable newspapers, and also by the subject himself, as demonstrated above. I genuinely don't understand the ferventness of those supporting the move, and why it has to be reopened time and time again, because the current title really is perfectly fine as it is. WP:POVTITLE doesn't forbid us to use a label when sources do use it, but it encourages neutrality when using Wikipedia's voice, and in this case there is really absolutely no need to do use a parenthetical disambiguator at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on now. It's used about 2% of the time that he's mentioned. The fact that it's used in 20 sources (if that) means squat when he's mentioned over 1000 times without it. "also by the subject himself"? When, one time? It's downright misleading to claim that his middle initial is used a significant amount of the time. Rockypedia (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The primary argument is not based on the idea that his middle initial is rarely used - not by a long shot. That's a made up point. The argument is that including a noun after his name makes him easier to find, and there's no policy based reason not to use it. What you are having trouble understanding is the ferventness of editors who want to make the encyclopedia really clear and easy to use. Edaham (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as redirects are in place, he's equally easy to find at either title. But there is a policy-based reason to use the initial: WP:Article titles prefers titles that are more natural, concise and neutral over artificial qualifiers. Station1 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Plucking a seldom-used middle initial to disambiguate by violates WP:COMMONNAME, though. TheValeyard (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That link is just a shortcut to one section of the policy I cited, WP:Article titles. The policy should be read as a whole to come to the best decision. I don't see where you think using a middle initial violates that section, unless it's because you think it's seldom-used. The initial is definitely used less frequently than plain "Richard Spencer", which is a good argument for titling the article "Richard Spencer", but it is common enough to be preferred as an article title over less natural, concise, consistent and neutral artificial alternatives. Station1 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"WP:Article titles prefers titles that are more natural, concise and neutral"

- you've got the policy dead on, but it leans to support WS. Firstly the use of the the word white supremacist is neutral. Secondly,

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors....When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids.

Edaham (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It may be not neutral. In Making Sense of the Alt-Right, George Hawley, an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama, calls Spencer a "white nationalist". On page 13, he writes "Throughout this text, I use the term “white nationalist” largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves. But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable." He acknowledges it but does not necessarily believe it--and does not explain who specifically might have invented it. Other reliable third-party sources in the mainstream media use both phrases, but they are written by people without PhDs. Hawley has a PhD from the University of Houston. It's complicated. (If you're wondering, I believe Spencer is a supremacist because of his views on abortion, but that is WP:OR.)Zigzig20s (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Hawley calls him a white nationalist despite the fact he feels it's an invented term designed to make white supremacist views more palatable. Fine. Drawing a conclusion from that that "It may be not neutral" is pure original research, as we say around these parts. In fact, the "invented term" bit makes the case even stronger for using "white supremacist", because we shouldn't be using invented terms designed to make white supremacy more PR-friendly; as In ictu oculi (talk) and NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) stated earlier, we should just use the term "white supremacist." Rockypedia (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't "feel", he "acknowledge[s]" (his word), without using it himself. Perhaps we should follow his example and use the phrase "white nationalist" instead, as he has a PhD. But I don't necessarily agree with Hawley as I explained before--my point is that there is no overwhelming consensus in the literature.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

european member states mentioned in intro

this is a weird question to ask on this subject but why is the number of EU member states mentioned as being 26 in the introduction (ie spencer is banned from 22 out of 26 EU member states)? Romania and Bulgaria are both part of the EU, and the UK is not leaving the EU until March 2019. I didn't want to edit the article as it says its protected but just thought I would point it out, since I bet a lot of people read this page and it needs to be accurate!

Fourdots2 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe this was based on a misreading of the source, as 3 nations were mentioned after that phrase that are actually in the EU. I fixed it. Rockypedia (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

okay thanks :)) Fourdots2 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality

He supports net neutrality. Citation: https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/941385454389260288 HardeeHar (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't be sure this is Richard Spencer, there's no blue tick mark. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The account was previously verified. Its still the same account. See: http://www.twitteraccountsdetails.com/Richardbspencer HardeeHar (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. He has lots of opinions about lots of things. Without a reliable, secondary source, it's just trivia. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If it lost verification, it must be a fake account. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Suppose we'll have to wait until its in ny times cuz theyre a more credable source of info about him than himself HardeeHar (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. He's not a credible expert on net neutrality, or FCC policy, or technology in general, or anything remotely related to this. Why should Wikipedia care what he says on twitter? We don't include people's tweets about random stuff in the news without a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Spencer is a private citizen, not a politician, his personal beliefs on this or that issue are not all that important. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of birth?

I've tagged Spencer's date of birth as needing citation, as it is not immediately apparent in the articles in "Early life" section (apologies if I have missed this while skimming). Can anyone include (or cite) a reliable source that verifies this? I have not yes found reliable sources that substantiate his birth date, only birth year, or "age as of publication". Unreliable sources like IMDb and gossip/horoscope content regurgitators (probably mirroring Wikipedia, or each other) do list his birth date, but we should not per WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY: note also that using primary public records like birth records or court documents is explicitly disallowed. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

His Twitter account amongst other source have the birth year, should we use bya? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I restored year of birth per cited source. If it's reliable enough for his middle name, then ditto for his year of birth. KalHolmann (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard B. Spencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170606043845/http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/11/26/skiing-with-the-enemy to http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/11/26/skiing-with-the-enemy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

White Supremacist

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.

---

It seems that according to the definition of "white supremacist" on Wikipedia's own page, a person should have to declare themselves a white supremacist in order to be labeled as such. Otherwise we are inferring something about their beliefs that contradicts their own statement of their belief. It could be that he is in fact a white supremacist, but usually encyclopedias do not take the liberty of inferring what people believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and we have already discussed this countless times. Spencer is a white supremacist according to the standards used by Wikipedia. Review this talk page and its archives for details. Grayfell (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: is wholly correct. The term is well documented in WP:RS and third party sources (such as neutral newspapers) are a reliable benchmark for addition to Category:American white supremacists In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What are "neutral" newspapers? Just because terminology appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.20.245 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyers like you, is the reason why Wikipedia is useless like for any controversial articles, and is losing editors every single year now. Address the argument and stop harassing people with 20 pages of legalistic crap. -- K.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.220.167 (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's going to get you nowhere. This "legalistic crap" is community standards that have been developed over the years and are widely adhered to here. Either make an effort to understand them, or move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard Spencer has time and time again reiterated that he is in fact NOT a white supremacist. Linda Sarsour is not listed as an Islamic supremacist, although she herself has espoused this. Good to see Wiki places mass hysteria and mob mentality over factual sustenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D503:F3E1:CD9E:72E1:F330:8B51 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Countless sources have described Spencer as a white supremacist. TheValeyard (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Countless sources have described Obama as a terrible president. -- K.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.220.167 (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but are they reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become such garbage fire because of political bias like this. You open this article declaring as fact that somebody is a "white supremacist" and then follow that with a statement that the person says he is not a white supremacist. You should leave your political bias in your own life before editing something like this. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.167.97 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change you'd like to see made? Rockypedia (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Another WP:RS with the label "white supremacist" for Richard Spencer if anyone wants to use it: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/01/white_supremacist_richard_spencer_wants_to_speak_on_may_4_at_kent_state.html EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember that the sources cited are not presenting facts as to how he is a white supremacist, and should be taken as opinion pieces. Instead of stating that he is a white supremacist, it should say that he is described as a white supremacist by those sources. See this on Wikipedia statements of opinion It is not up to us to decide what he is or isn't without facts, that would be bias. ARandomHippo (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We’ve been over this before. White supremacism is a set of beliefs. Describing someone as a white supremacist is a factual description of their beliefs. The various reliable sources that have described him that way are not marked as opinion and have been subjected to rigorous, professional fact-checking. Not opinion. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed. If you can present a single fact those articles present, I will concede this. But I have reviewed every single one of the sources cited for him being a white supremacist, and there is not a quote, ideal, or factual piece of information or belief that Spencer holds that prove him a supremacist. Besides, it is impossible to brand someone with a label without knowing their ideals. You can hold them to it, but it is impossible to be a fact, because in the end it is the person and only the person that decides their beliefs. ARandomHippo (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation not needed. You read the sources. The sources say Spencer is a white supremacist. Not just one or two, but a whole bunch. They don't need to back up their content with facts and figures. Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@ARandomHippo: WP:RSOPINION is about opinion pieces. We aren't citing those. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But we are, that's exactly what they are. They are not presented as fact and regardless of whether or not the source is reliable, there are not facts and they are statements of opinion. The thing you linked even specifies that opinions can be present in reliable sources. Can this be more clear? Just like @Dr. Fleischman said, they aren't backing it up with facts or figures, which makes them opinions, so they should be cited as such. ARandomHippo (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not. The sources stating Spencers white supremacist viewpoints are not opinion columns, they are actual, verifiable news articles. This is a factual as it is to say that Hitler is a Nazi or bin Laden is a terrorist. ValarianB (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because a reliable source states a fact without citing supporting "facts and figures" doesn't magically turn the fact into an opinion. I say the sky is blue. Is it that an opinion just because I didn't provide the exact hue or tell you how I know the sky is blue? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If they are verifiable, then why can't anyone verify them? And why can't anyone provide a belief of his that supports the claim he is a supremacist? It is much different than claiming the sky is blue, because that is objective. These are his beliefs and no amount of articles can change what he actually is. It's different than Hitler because he was a self-described Nazi and created Nazi ideology, and different than bin Laden because he literally committed/directed multiple acts of terror. A reliable source can say someone is a fascist, that doesn't make it true. A reliable source can say a dress is white and gold, that doesn't make it true. A reliable source can say that someone holds some ideology, but citing it as fact is quite the opposite of core policies Wikipedia has such as remaining neutral, statements of opinion, and verifiability. ARandomHippo (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:V... you do not appear to understand what Wikipedia means by "verifiable". Also WP:TRUTH EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You really have an issue with WP:V, not with this article. I mean you're talking about radically changing how Wikipedia works across the board, not just here. I suggest you take it up at WT:V, WP:VPP, or WP:TEA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, neither of you seem to understand WP:NPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:REDFLAG,WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, WP:BIASED, or the concept of a bare assertion fallacy. You can conveniently read about them right here, on Wikipedia. And I apologize, my dispute of the verifiability of the articles was, in context, replying to ValarianB, not disagreeing with the definition of verifiable that Wikipedia provides. I was using the word as defined by a dictionary, as in you cannot verify the "facts" within the articles. But I will quote WP:RSOPINION, "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Keyword here being reliable. A source can be a reliable source, but still be opinionated, much as these sources, and we should therefore say something more along the lines of "Richard B. Spencer is often called a white supremacist, although he rejects the name" rather than "...is an American white supremacist.", because that is bias. Hell, some of the sources cited don't even call Spencer a white supremacist, and also conflict in calling him a white nationalist in the same article. Specifically the two Christian Science Monitor articles, they call his think tank white supremacist, not him. Why are these issues not being addressed? ARandomHippo (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you bone up bigly on our policies and guidelines before lecturing us on how they work. I don't typically like to talk about seniority, but how many edits do you have under your belt? 10??? Or perhaps you have more editing experience than you're letting on? And are you sure you read WP:BIASED or are you just throwing out shortcuts for to impress us? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's funny to me that the CSM source is being described as a conflict, because it the kind of verification of the label that's ostensibly being requested. Being the leader of a white supremacist organization "verifies" that Spencer is a white supremacist. This is, of course, a distraction, because it's not up to Wikipedia to define white supremacy in this article, it's up to us to reflect reliable sources. In this case, there is no issue with either. Reliable sources and Wikipedia's definition both agree that Spencer is a a white supremacist. Using euphemistic language to be less offensive is political correctness, is it not? Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the "Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere" line at the top of this page, I'd say this discussion has run its course. TheValeyard (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you all insist in not making changes? His "supremacy" is clearly an expression of bias from the sources cited. It would be much more cohesive and conforming with Wikipedia policy to change it to say some people think he is a supremacist yet he disagrees. And the reason I was throwing out policies is because you had done the same with WP:V to me, but I actually understood that plenty, it just didn't seem it. However you genuinely don't seem to understand any of the ones I listed. Especially the logical fallacy. Every single article made bare assertions as to Spencer being a supremacist. It is illogical to insert those same fallacies into an article that is supposed to be accurate. And as to my editing experience, it really doesn't matter, sure I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make your thoughts any more valid than mine, and it makes it more embarrassing for you, as you have more editing experience, but can't understand the core policy of a neutral point of view. This is again without mentioning that his nationalist-supremacist ideology is disputed by multiple reliable sources. Here is an article by the Washington Post that highlights what I mean exactly. It depends on the source. Wikipedia should be a place to find neutral information, so why is the information not neutral? Here are some other sources that report him being a nationalist, not a supremacist. Michigan Live (not on the reliable source noticeboard, but it fits most everything in WP:IRS, SPLC, NBC News, LA Times, Huffington Post, need I find more? So how about we agree that we should listen to what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:WEIGHT say, and edit it so it presents information in a neutral way? ARandomHippo (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"To be white is to be a striver, a crusader, an explorer, and a conqueror. We don’t exploit other groups," he told The Atlantic. "They need us and not the other way around." I think that's about all we need to hear to settle the argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm with TheValeyard at this point. No one's going to be convinced of anything at this point. We haven't even talked about the prior consensus. Time to pound sand and move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Christianity

Based on the reporting in the following articles, it seems to me that Richard Spencer's views on Christianity are sufficiently noteworthy to be included on this page; however, he also speaks about some other religions, perhaps "views on religion" or something similar would be a better title. Links to some articles: Courier-Journal, The Atlantic, TIME. I think the section in question ought to be expanded beyond a single quote. - Mr.1032 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against a short summary of Spencer's views on Christianity that summarizes the available sources. What I have an issue with is using that quote, which seems rather random and we should generally try to avoid using quotes unless the quoted language is particularly noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I set about restarting the section, so long as User:Grayfell shares this point of view. And thanks for the tip on quotes, I'll keep that in mind. - Mr.1032 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. Spencer is not a recognized expert on religion (or any other topic, really), so any opinions he gives should be supported and contextualized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded this slightly. I am concerned that by merely mentioning Nietzsche's supposed influence on Spencer without any further qualification, we are misrepresenting the mainstream academic understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy. This is yet another example of why it's so difficult to strike a balance with this article, but I feel it's better to be slightly too detailed than to subtly validate sloppy academics. In addition to one source already added, I've included two more specifically about Spencer's and the alt-right's incompetent and selective reading of Neitzsche. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist and white supremacist?

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.

---

As it seems people are quite split on whether to call him a white supremacist or a white nationalist, why not call him both? The white nationalist label is quite relevant to him, and can't really be disputed. Alex of Canada (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to me like a step backward as far as neutrality goes. I don't agree with this double-usage at Jared Taylor, and I don't like it here, either. Academically, when applied to ideologies these terms are closely intertwined. This has also become increasingly clear among news sources and similar. To the extent that the two are different, Spencer is entirely within both domains, so this is redundant. In this specific context, Spencer's use of the term "white nationalist" is pseudointellectual and euphemistic. Some people seem to think "white nationalist" is more tightly defined more than it actually is, but so far those people have not been effective at steering the discourse. We should use simple, direct language, instead. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that "why not both?" is intellectually dishonest, honestly. I'm sorry that the subject does not like being described as a white supremacist, but that is what the sources say that the Wikipedia goes by. You also committed multiple reverts in a 24-hour window, and refused to self-revert when questioned by User Greyfell on your talk page, I see. That doesn't bode well. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I quit doing anything political on this god damn site, I'll stick to geography from now on. Alex of Canada (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not split. A while back the article had both, and after discussion there was a clear consensus to remove "white nationalist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Spencer says he's stopped speaking on campus

"Over the weekend, Richard B. Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute, announced he would forgo any more campus speeches for now after a sparsely attended speech on March 5 at Michigan State University."[1] Doug Weller talk 08:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Better sources: [2], [3], [4] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Charlottesville "Three deaths" is misleading

There was only one death directly resulting from the Charlottesville rally, when the rally member drove into the crowd. The other two were from an accidental police helicopter crash. The article is already extremely leading and POV, and I understand it's a charged subject, but let's not have it be inaccurate as well if we want people to take it seriously. I'd fix it myself but it's locked. Felice Enellen (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If there was no rally, the officers would not have been in the helicopter. ValarianB (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the 3 deaths should be removed. They're too off-topic and I agree with Felice that they create a neutrality/BLP problem. Besides, the cited sources don't mention the helicopter crash. The NBC29 source doesn't say anything about deaths, and the Vox source says there was only one death (at that point). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the majority of substantial sources on Spencer written after the rally either mention Heather Heyer's death, or allude to it. For example, all three of the sources in the above section on Spencer's not-really-canceled speaking tour mention the rally, and two mention the deadly ramming attack. The helicopter crash victims were also victims of the rally, but they do not appear to have anywhere close to that level of coverage. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm open-minded, I just try to stick to the sources for such controversial matters. If you find a bio piece on Spencer that mentions one or more of the deaths, then please post it here for evaluation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cosplay Nazi

I'm not sure this belongs in the article, but Philadephia magazine called Spencer a "cosplay Nazi." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist not white supremacist

Isn't Richard Spencer a white nationalist, not a white supremacist? To my knowledge, he hasn't disparaged non-white groups, only advocated for white people to have homogenous nations and collective interests. It seems like this article seeks to disparage him by mislabeling him as a white supremacist (someone who believes that white people are better than others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmaster1000 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives. There are links near the top of this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. The article contains nine references to reliable sources that call Spencer a white supremacist. No reliable sources refute that. Case closed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Going downhill?

His FB pages are closed down.[5] His lawsuits are failing, his lawyer's left him, and he's begging for money to defend himself against a lawsuit.[6] Doug Weller talk 12:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Alt right term coinage

Richard Spencer is not the inventor of the term "Alternative Right" or "Alt Right".

Even Mr Spencer does not claim to have invented the term - he claims he "co created" the term "Alternative Right" (or "Alt Right) with Paul Gottfried. In fact Paul Gottfried was using the term long before Mr Spencer, so Mr Spencer can not be truthfully described as the inventor (or even "co creator" of the term. It appears that Nazis (people who chant "the Jews will not replace us" - which I have heard them chant) can not even invent their own terminology and need a Jew (Paul Gottfried) to invent their terminology for them. What sort of bizarre self hatred has led Paul Gottfried to cooperate with these people I leave to others to judge.90.195.120.92 (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to take it up with the editors for the cited sources: The New Yorker, the SPLC, and The New York Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede

I think there should be a paragraph on how European heads of states have formally condemned him and banned him from their country. It is odd he thinks he'd meet a good reception in European, given that he uses Nazi rhetoric and various (Slavic) European ethnic groups were labeled as "Untermenschen" and exterminated by the Nazis. (See, e.g., General Plan Ost.) But it is surely significant given his pan-European race theory. Steeletrap (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi and pan-European condemnation

Steeletrap, where are the sources for this content? As far as I know no reliable source has come out and said expressly that Spencer is neo-Nazi, and the statement that "almost every European head of state, both nationalist and liberal" has condemned Spencer's pan-European message is extraordinary too and likely improper synthesis, unless we have a source that says exactly that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

−

What I want to add: "Spencer's message of white nationalism and pan-European racial identity has been condemned by numerous European heads of state, both nationalist and liberal." What part of this is unsourced? Steeletrap (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole thing. I don't know what sources you're relying on for any of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this tidbit from our policy forbidding original research might be relevant: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Doc! Can you explain what the BLP violation is in the last edit? DO you read Hungarian and say the source is not what I say it is? Or are you claiming the source is not RS? Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the reliability of that source. But you need to stop adding content to the article that's not expressly supported by the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Really, User:DrFleischman? How hard is it to find references for "Neo-Nazi rhetoric"?

• https://jezebel.com/putting-the-neo-back-in-neo-nazi-1789743928
• https://www.michigandaily.com/section/administration/university-will-not-deny-spencer-request-speak-campus hard
• http://www.papermag.com/watch-hero-college-student-shut-down-neo-nazi-jackass-richard-spencer--2370335365.html
• http://thedailyaztec.com/81130/opinion/assault-on-white-nationalist-richard-spencer-echoes-similar-action-on-campus-almost-55-years-ago
• http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article117788403.html Neo-Nazi rhetoric]? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)--Calton | Talk 06:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Then restore it with appropriate sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

But this is not appropriate sourcing. Another BLP vio. Please stop you guys, before admin attention becomes necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"neo-Nazi rhetoric" (in the source) -- what's the problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The opinion piece is no good, but what's your objection to Michigan Daily? I was surprised that you removed it entirely. If you really think it's unusable as a source, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I doubt you'll get anywhere. In any case, while I don't agree with your removal of that one, the easiest way to resolve a source issue is to find more sources, so I dug up a few below. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's some more sources. Some of these are for his use of Neo-Nazi rhetoric; some of these are for the more general fact that he's described as a Neo-Nazi in reliable sources, often without qualification. Others are for individual events related to the topic that we might devote a sentence to. We could probably use these to expand into a full paragraph or two about his use of Nazi rhetoric and how he's been connected to Nazism. Anyway:

• But whether Spencer agrees with Trump or not, his "Hail Trump" speech has had a major impact on the alt-right. Since video of it emerged, there's been a split of alt-righters who believe the neo-Nazi rhetoric has hurt their own cause.
• Spencer, a Dallas native who coined the term “alt-right,” has drawn headlines this month for his neo-Nazi rhetoric, including when he led a “Hail Trump!” chant and spoke in German at a white nationalist conference in Washington, D.C.
• Perhaps more alarmingly, members of the alt-right community have praised Trump with messages clearly inflected with neo-Nazi rhetoric. “Hail Trump!” Richard Spencer, a prominent member of that movement, said during a recent event to celebrate the election.
• In addition to being labeled as a white supremacist, Spencer and his followers have been tagged by various organisations as neo-Nazis and part of a rise in neo-Nazi activity since the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
• After a single minute, he referred to the media as the “lügenpresse,” a Nazi-era term meaning “lying press.” ... “For us, as Europeans, it is only normal again when we are great again!” he shouted. “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” He raised his glass and, in video caught on camera by the Atlantic, the heart of the alt-right stood and cheered — and a number of them offered their leader the Nazi salute.
• But after dinner, when most journalists had already departed, Spencer rose and delivered a speech to his followers dripping with anti-Semitism, and leaving no doubt as to what he actually seeks. He referred to the mainstream media as “Lügenpresse,” a term he said he was borrowing from “the original German”; the Nazis used the word to attack their critics in the press.
• ...from false information that she pressured the mother of an Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer, to sell her property in Whitefish, Montana after Spencer gained notoriety for a Nazi-style gathering in Washington D.C.
• That level would be its white supremacy, as evidenced by Spencer’s Nazi salute and chant of “Hail Trump” at the so-called National Policy Institute conference in November 2016.
• When a protestor punched neo-Nazi Richard Spencer at Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, antifascists praised the action on the very bodily performative terms that Butler affirms in Notes.
• If you live in this small, ski resort town where neo-Nazi Richard Spencer — the alt-right darling who has been called “a kind of professional racist in khakis” — has put down roots, you fight back.
• The report also noted that SAFE frequently denied charges of anti-Semitism, citing their condemnation of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.
• Spencer has led the alt-right movement and runs the website AlternativeRight.com. During a National Policy Institute conference, he denounced Jews and quoted from Nazi propaganda. He also led a rally in Washington, D.C., after Trump’s election, where he guided members of the rally in a Nazi salute in which they loudly declared “hail Trump.”
• Sen. Ben Sasse ... ripped into Richard Spencer, calling the alt-right leader a "clown" and a "brown-shirt-pajama-boy Nazi" and implying he and other neo-Nazis lived in their parents' basements. ... Spencer, who gained notoriety last November for leading a group of roughly 200 people in a Nazi salute at one of his speeches in Washington, D.C., shortly after President Donald Trump was elected.
• Richard Spencer is president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think-tank promoting ideals of white nationalism and white identity. He famously coined the term “Alt-Right” in 2008, and a video of him shouting Nazi-inspired rhetoric while addressing more than 200 attendees at a National Policy Institute conference in Washington D.C. went viral in November of 2016.

I can understand the desire to be cautious with a WP:BLP, but I think the previous sources were already decent enough that immediate removal was going too far; and in any case, the coverage of Spencer's lügenpresse remark and "Hail Trump!" as Neo-Nazi rhetoric was so overwhelming that I'm befuddled that anyone interested in the topic could have missed them. Spencer's widespread coverage as a neo-Nazi is uncontroversial and is probably the most well-known thing about him at this point (if anything, the only thing that could be considered controversial is the 'neo-' part, which some sources omit.) EDIT: Honestly, looking over the weight of those sources, I think it's worth an entire section under "views" (we can note his own dissent there, of course, if we have good sources for it, but when you have multiple academic sources, a wide range of news sources over an extended period of time, and a sitting US Senator calling someone a neo-Nazi, with several of these sources referring to those Neo-Nazi incidents as what made him famous, it probably deserves a section.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

The neo-Nazi stuff is why he keeps getting kicked out of European countries: not just liberal ones like Germany but nationalistic, ethno-centric ones like Poland that suffered and were deemed racially inferior under Nazi occupation. Dr. F, since you're outnumbered 3-1 it's probably best to accept the changes or bring this to a BLP board. Pretending the sources aren't reliable or don't say what we say they do isn't a productive approach. Steeletrap (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• It seems accurate to say that he's been criticized for using Neo-Nazi rhetoric and has been called a Nazi. I think it's worth noting that organizations like the SPLC associate him with "suit-and-tie" wing of the white supremacist movement - that's not to say that his ideas are all that different ideologically, but he is notable in part because he limits the overt Nazism. Aquillion's suggestion of a subsection might be a good place to mention this. Nblund ^talk 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have absolutely zero problem with including the content, provided it's reliably sourced and the sourcing is made clear in the article. Currently, this is classic WP:SYNTH. We don't get to take a whole lot of similar sources and add them all up together to say something that's not said expressly by any single one of them. I will continue to remove this content since it's a flagrant BLP vio. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Explain, specifically, what part you feel is WP:SYNTH - pull out specific words you feel are unsupported and point to them. Right now it's impossible to say what you object to because you're blindly reverting any edits. My reading of the situation is that the only part you actually have a serious objection to (ie. the text that is setting you off, so to speak) is the words "on numerous occasions" - every other bit you reverted seems to me to be nearly a word-for-word paraphrase of one source or another. So if you don't provide a specific indication of what parts you object to I'm going to wait a day or so to give you a chance to elaborate, then restore a version with those two words removed or substituted as I outlined below. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

It would be good if wording could be worked out here instead of repeatedly making changes to the article to see what sticks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to keep adhering to BLP by removing content until someone comes up with language that actually reflects what the cited reliable sources say, or until I'm directed otherwise by an uninvolved admin (e.g. Neil). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What is this, some sort of test, with DrFleischman as the inscrutable judge whose wisdom must be divined? Interesting way to respond to a polite request re edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's called following our core policies. Just because a few editors breeze right by WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPV doesn't mean anyone gets a free pass from BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So I'm now forming the view that your editing on this page is becoming disruptive. You keep reverting because you're not satisfied, and you're not engaging substantively in the discussion above to figure out a version that (in your view) conforms to the sources. This is of course edit-warring -- slow, but nonetheless edit-warring. This is a perspective I'll be happy to see considered at AE if necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well part of the reason I wrote "or until I'm directed otherwise by an uninvolved admin (e.g. Neil)" was to invite NeilN to tell me if I'm going to far. Personally I see this as a pretty straightforward application of BLP. I don't think my position is unclear. None of the participants in the discussion need to be educated that if a source doesn't say something then we can't either. And to be honest, it's more difficult to engage constructive discussion when you're being called a "clown," accused of "spinning" for Spencer, being told "bullshit" when you're just enforcing core policies, and being threatened with sanctions. Then we have folks violating 1RR to add content using opinion sources in student newspapers. I mean really. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant to ping NeilN in that last comment. Do you think my enforcement of BLP has gone too far and I'm being disruptive? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Also Nomo, you might want to review this page's edit history before you generalize about my editing here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW Calton was just blocked for edit warring in this dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• And for what it's worth, he was unblocked with an apology. If you're trying to poison the well, you need to do a better, less-obvious job of it. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Fleischman, you have to be more specific about your objections (and, therefore, your reverts). WP:BLP is not a blank check to revert every single edit because you found one part you object to. You restored the Daily Beast to a BLP article - do you feel that that is a valid application of BLP? Do you feel that it was a BLP violation for me to replace the Daily Beast with a better source? More generally, let's go over each part individually and you can tell me what your objections are (I'll restore any part that you don't explain a specific objection to in a day or so.) In each case, I want you to say, specifically, what you feel that the text you reverted implied or stated that the sources did not back up, or what you found so objectionable about the sources that you felt they were unusable in a WP:BLP.

• Spencer is widely described as a neo-Nazi Also, alternatively, Spencer has been described as a neo-Nazi by numerous sources (the formulation I used.) I think the sources unambiguously support the fact that he has been described as a neo-Nazi by a broad range of sources rather than just by the media. See eg. In addition to being labeled as a white supremacist, Spencer and his followers have been tagged by various organisations as neo-Nazis and part of a rise in neo-Nazi activity since the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. (from a source I added, which you inexplicably removed as a WP:BLP violation.)
• and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric on numerous occasions. Again, we've got a lot of sources using the term "neo-Nazi rhetoric" and "Nazi rhetoric". Is your objection to the "numerous occasions" specifically? Would it be addressed if we reworded it to eg. and has attracted attention for his use of Nazi rhetoric or the like? The sources above pretty unambiguously support that.
• You removed cites to Ramasubramanian and Michigan Daily, and restored a cite to the Daily Beast. Explain why you prefer that source (and your objection to Michigan Daily; you've implicitly objected to it above, but still haven't explained why.)
• You reverted Spencer was one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which drew national attention after an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one, removing several sources in the process. Explain your objections to that wording and to those sources.
• You reverted Since then, many of Spencer's subsequent speaking engagements have been denied or canceled. Again, you also removed several sources. Explain your objections to that wording and sources.
• You removed Spencer has been banned from entering most countries in Europe, including countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist. In 2014 he was banned from Hungary and mocked by the Hungarian press for his call to supplant a distinct Hungarian racial identity with a Pan-European white identity. I suspect that this one is the crux of your disagreement (and that many of the above were just caught up in your blanket revert), but the source seems to back it up. Would you accept this as an additional source?

BLP is important, but all of these (except maybe the two words "numerous occasions") are widely-accepted, uncontroversial statements that were well-backed by the existing sources and which it is trivial to find better sources if you look. None of this remotely justifies the sweeping, blind, poorly-considered reverts you applied here. I mean, you restored the Daily Beast as a source for a statement of fact, while claiming you were acting to uphold WP:BLP. Please stop, slow down, voice specific objections and stop just blindly reverting every edit you disagree with on the grounds that you feel there's a WP:BLP problem with one line. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. F., if you can provide specific objections to specific claims, rather than vaguely citing "BLP," (which is meaningless when it is unspecific), I will talk this out with you before reverting. Steeletrap (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor seeking to include information to establish that it's supported by the cited reliable sources, not the other way around. As I already said, you don't get to throw a whole bunch of sources together and say that they collectively, kind-of-sort-of say something so we can say it too. It doesn't matter how reliable or "good" the sources are. Case-by-case in the following thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And it is also the burden of an editor objecting to inclusion to specify what their problems are. You don't get to throw away a whole bunch of edits with a collective, kind-of-sort-of wave at policy as an all-purpose shield. You have consistently failed at that. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

When nobody agrees with you--including the admin who dropped by--it's probably best to either accede to the consensus or take it to a notice board. Edit warring really isn't the adult approach. Steeletrap (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific BLP violations

Re-consolidating as this has split into two separate threads about the same thing. This seems really quite simple to me. My concerns are about verifiability: if we're going to say something, it has to be expressly supported by the cited reliable sources. The burden is on the editor(s) seeking to include information to establish its verifiability, especially for BLP content. So. We're talking about three pieces of information here... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nazi rhetoric

Which reliable sources say that Spencer has been widely described (not just described) as a neo-Nazi and that he has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric on numerous occasions? Provide the sources, and I will withdraw my opposition. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that's an excessively legalistic legalistic understanding of SYNTH; almost every article has this kind of SYNTH, in terms of summarizing the effect of various sources in a compact sentence. Nevertheless, even under your definition of SYN, I take it you'd be willing to re-add "Spencer has been described by academic sources and in the mainstream media as a Nazi or neo-Nazi," since that is directly supported by the various RS you keep removing. Steeletrap (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That he has engaged in Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions is directly supported by RS. Steeletrap (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As a threshold question I don't understand the benefit of explaining how widely he's been described as a neo-Nazi or has having engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric. The reliable sources say he has engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric, right? So why not just say he has engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on Nazism or its relevance, RS describe him as such, which is reason enough to include it. Please stop it with the whitewashing. It's completely obvious at this point. Steeletrap (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we have a listening problem here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. It's not "we", it's you, given your hair-splitting. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh... facepalm. I proposed just saying that Spencer has engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric and Steeletrap asked me to stop whitewashing. How is that listening? And are you done with the ad hominems? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

LOL @ "we!" It's just one dude. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Are "we" ready to have a substantive discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, you have no objection to my formulation of Spencer has been described as a neo-Nazi by numerous sources? You blind-reverted all the way back to before that one, so I was unsure. Or would you prefer various organizations, which is an exact quote of the main source I used? --Aquillion (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally

Which reliable sources say that the Unite the Right rally drew national attention after an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one? I'm pretty sure this on is factually inaccurate; the rally drew plenty of national attention (front page news) before it turned violent. Also, this content appears to be non-neutral as it appears to be trying to tag Spencer for things he wasn't directly involved in. The connection should between Spencer and the killing should be made by reliable sources before it's made by us. Provide the sources, and I will withdraw my opposition. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is your source for the claim that "the rally drew plenty of national attention before it turned violent"? Your use of double standards like this (requiring hard evidence for the attention drawn by the murder, but going off of OR for the more favorable claim that the rally was highly notable before the murder) is why some have questioned your motives. Also, Spencer is currently being sued for alleging instigating the murder--I have no idea whether this is true or not, but your opinion on his lack of involvement in the murder is pure speculation that again some will see as indicative of a bias.

How about we drop the claim about when the rally drew attention and instead say something like "Spencer has promoted his ideas through public speaking engagements, but many of his events have been delayed, rejected or prohibited since the Unite the Right Rally, in which a supporter of the alt right drove a car through a crowd of counter-protestors, killing one." I'm sure you'd agree everything there is cited. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one seeking to add content without reliable sources to support it. But, since you called my statement "speculation," here's proof that I'm right. The rally was getting national attention before that person died. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you got through all 5 sentences of my comment. Your proposal would be non-neutral as it would tag Spencer for things he wasn't directly involved in. The connection should between Spencer and the killing should be made by reliable sources before it's made by us. If he's being sued in connection with the death then that should be included, with reliable sourcing of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Europe bans

Which reliable sources say that Spencer was banned from European countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist? Also, which reliable sources say that Spencer was mocked by the Hungarian press for his call to supplant a distinct Hungarian racial identity with a Pan-European white identity? Provide the sources, and I will withdraw my opposition. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This particular claim is supported by the Hungarian RS I added. See http://nol.hu/belfold/ez-politikai-uldoztetes-1490215. This was one of the most respected newspapers in Hungary for decades, before it was closed for compelling economic reasons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9pszabads%C3%A1g. . It's certainly a reliable source.

I read Hungarian and can assure you that it contains the claims to which it is cited. Part of the reason I think Spencer is a bit of a joke--to disclose my bias--is because he doesn't understand that in many European countries, incl. Hungary, race is not defined on the 'white-black-yellow' American construct. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I question your honesty. Your statement about what's in the source appears to be categorically false. Where in the source does it say anything about governments that have been described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist? Where does it say anything about anyone being mocked? Where does it say anything about the Hungarian press? Where does it say anything about a distinct Hungarian racial identity? Specific language please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright I'm dropping out. Dealing with a Richard Spencer whitewasher was aggravating enough; now you have the gall to criticize another (non-Richard Spencer apologist) human being's integrity? Hopefully someone else can deal with this guy.

Toward the end the op-ed (which is part of the Hungarian Press) makes fun of Spencer's "fantasies," regarding how he could convince the Hungarians (who have a form of racial identity that appeals to Turkey and the ME) to abandon their rich identity for the ahistorical nonsense that is "white identity." Presumably google translate will be able to show that to you. Steeletrap (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think I'm "lying" about the Hungarian-language RS, unfortunately for you I have now have FP mag calling the Hungarian government (which, as its notes in the same article, banned Spencer) nationalist. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/13/the-bumbling-bigots-of-budapest/ Steeletrap (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There are too many things wrong with this. Op-eds are unreliable. The use of the word "álmát" doesn't mean the op-ed was mocking Spencer. The op-ed doesn't say anything about the Hungarian press or about a distinct Hungarian racial identity. And your reference to the FP source proves you don't understand WP:SYNTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely there is a neutral editor who also reads Hungarian whom we can bring in. THe source does not directly talk about the Hungarian press--though it is itself part of it--but it certainly does mock Spencer's pan-Europenaism and describe Hungarian identity. I have tried to revise by clearly describing the article as an opinion from a particular (leading) Hungarian newspaper, rather than representative of the Hungarian press generally. Let us now try to find another editor who reads Hungarian. Steeletrap (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's as you describe, you're misusing it as a primary source. We don't get to interpret the source and discuss its tone. And one newspaper is not "the Hungarian press" Not to mention that, again, the op-ed doesn't say anything about a distinct Hungarian racial identity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If you believe an editor is intentionally lying about the content of a foreign-language source, please take it to WP:ANI, since that would be a serious conduct issue. If you're unwilling to do so (or don't think you have the evidence to do so), please assume good faith and drop the issue; throwing WP:ASPERSIONS blindly is not constructive. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not aspersions. The representations were verifiably false. You are free to do a little due diligence yourself. AGF does not mean blind trust. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you feel you have sufficient proof of that, take it to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Policy (and past ArbCom resolutions) have repeatedly said that insinuating an editor conduct issue without doing so is sanctionable. It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. If you honestly, truly believe that someone is deliberately lying about a source, you must take it to WP:ANI or WP:AE; it is not a useful or constructive position to bring up on this talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

POV / Undue tags.

Based on my assessment of the discussion above, I would say that right now, only a single editor supports the tags added in this edit. I think the tags are clearly inappropriate; the first sentence closely paraphrases the typical sources on that subject, while Spencer's overall participation in Charlottesville has attracted enough attention that it's hard to see how one sentence devoted to a lawsuit against him related to it (which, itself, seems to have decent coverage) could be considered WP:UNDUE. Does anyone else want to weigh in? Based on the tone and general one-sidedness of the discussions above, I suspect it won't be hard to reach a consensus to remove them, but it might be worth talking it out just in case, in case anyone has something to add that isn't covered above. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have explained the reasoning for the tags in the section ummediately above and no one has responded, yourself included. I will remove the tags if there's consensus to do so but I'd hope my reasonable concerns were acknowledged first at a minimum. For whatever reason I sense that some newcomers to this page assume that I'm some sort of Spencer backer (which couldn't be further from the truth) and aren't taking my comments seriously. Would you like me to re-post them here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have explained the reasoning for the tags in the section ummediately [sic] above and no one has responded. No, no one has bought it. You tried and failed to sell your claims at WP:AE and various admin talk pages, and no one's bought it. You've been reduced to claiming that everyone is wrong but you and that nobody has read your claims, otherwise they would be rejecting it. You're batting zero, and you're getting desperate for excuses. Check your ego, guy: no one's agreed with you, so you're going to have to entertain the possibility that you're wrong. I'm putting this out of its misery and taking the tags off. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You're (proactively) right about one thing, though: going forward, editors and admins are now much less likely to read your reasonings in future, given your self-inflicting rep as a time-waster. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal, Calton. I disagree that the tag shouldn't be there, and I think the right thing to do is to start an RfC on the size of the lead. I have to say, the lead, as it is, is the longest I've ever seen for an individual who is so completely fringe and notable for one thing (being a White Supremacist) in such a short life-span with name-recognition among news readers/watchers only over the last year (or less). The guy's essentially a nothing, a nobody, but looking at the lead, you would think he is as well-known as a Hollywood celebrity with decades upon decades of films, stage performances, television appearances, and a list of awards as long as your arm. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources in the third graph related to the two NPOV tags, and in my estimation, the tags are not warranted. That said, the first sentence could be worded a little more artfully.- MrX 🖋 14:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

Why do we say, "Spencer has been described as a neo-Nazi and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions," instead of just saying "Spencer is a neo-Nazi"? Wouldn't that be verifiable and clearer? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to calling him a neo-Nazi in the article voice (I think we have enough and strong enough sources that do so for it to be reasonable), but I think we'd also have to describe his use of Nazi rhetoric, since the coverage is pretty overwhelming to the point where I think it's reasonable to argue that it's one of the things he's most famous for. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be reasonable to have a paragraph about his neo-Nazi conduct in the "Public speaking" subsection that includes the Nazi salute and all that stuff. It doesn't need to go into which or how many sources have called him a neo-Nazi or count how many times he engaged in verifiably neo-Nazi rhetoric. There are few enough such instances that we should describe them all. That being said, that level of detail doesn't belong in the lead. In the lead we should say he's a neo-Nazi and include a bit about the Nazi salute stuff (since it received the most media coverage). Frankly the lead is simply too long and the recent changes have gone in the wrong direction--adding excessive detail instead of reducing it. A shorter, pithier lead section is more effective. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If a preponderance of independent sources describe him as a neo-Nazi, then yes, we should simply say he's a neo-Nazi.- MrX 🖋 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we neutrally state in wiki-voice that such-and-so source(s) or media has referred to him as a neo-Nazi. If he has referred to himself as a neo-Nazi, then we say he's a neo-Nazi. Preferably that he has referred to himself as such, but we don't state it in wiki-voice based on the (understandable) media bias against neo-Nazis. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Charlottesville

I'm concerned about the weight and level of detail in this new passage in the lead section:

Spencer was one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others.[16][17][18] Spencer denies any role or culpability in the attack, 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]

This just seems like too much detail for the lead section. The names of the attorneys who sued him? Is that really appropriate for a 4-paragraph summary of the guy's life? I'm not proposing that we remove this content, just that we move it to the body. Also, I understand that the lawsuit creates connection between between Spencer and the death, but the way it's featured so prominently in the lead strikes me as undue weight on one particular aspect of the event. I'm not aware of any news coverage around the time of the rally that made that connection. (This was actually discussed here already.)

On top of that there's important context missing about the lawsuit. The gang boss stuff is just the plaintiff's legal theory. Spencer's lawyers have their own theories, which are covered by the same sources. Some balance is needed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The connection is that the Charlottesville killing--for whose actions Spencer and other alt-right leaders were, rightly or wrongly, widely blamed--is that after Charlottesville universities and other public venues really started trying to shut down Spencer's events. Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources making that particular connection? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I resolved that particular issue with this edit, which appears to reflect cited sources. I do still think that the level of detail about the Charlotteville violence is undue. For the purposes of Spencer's lead section it should be enough to say that the event turned violent and that the violence was cited as the reason his later speaking engagements were cancelled. The specific details of the violence aren't really about Spencer and the lawsuit hasn't received much media coverage. All worthy of inclusion in the article, just not in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Spencer was a featured speaker at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. He has been sued in federal court for his alleged role in inciting the actions of an alt-right supporter who drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others.

- MrX 🖋 20:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tags

MrX, your removal of tags in this article was wholly inappropriate. Especially when you consider there is a brand new RfC occurring (RfCs can go up to 30 days) and discussion on the other tags also just started. Individual editors should never make unilateral decisions on behalf of the community, which is exactly what you just did. The right thing to do here is to revert yourself. If you do not, your unilateral action appears to be a hostile, disruptive action. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

My removal of the tags was wholly appropriate. See discussion two sections up. Please don't ping me for silly things like this.- MrX 🖋 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX I'm baffled, it's like you've glossed right over all of the comments explaining the reasoning for the tags. Just because you disagree with the tags doesn't mean you get to remove them unilaterally. Regardless of whether the removal was reasonable at the time, however, can we agree that there's clearly no consensus right now and the tags should remain for the time being? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX can you please self-revert and restore the tags while these issues are being resolved? Among other things the tags help to bring editors to the pending discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you're baffled DrFleischman. You have made arguments, but they are simply not very convincing. As far as I can tell, four editors disagree with the placement of the tags, while two agree with the placement. I'm nonplussed that you seem to be suggesting that consensus is required to remove the tags. That is simply not so. I reviewed the cited source and other relevant sources, as well as the discussions on this page, and found the tags to be unwarranted.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to be the judge and jury of whether tags stay or go. It's just an essay, but WP:DETAG suggests that tags that are explained on the talk page should lead to normal talk page discussion and consensus building. By removing the tags, you are undermining the consensus building process. If you're so confident that the problems are invalid then the tags will recruit more editors to talk who will support your position and establish a consensus in your favor. I've raised specific concerns about the length of the lead and proposed specific language that should be cut, and you've either missed those concerns or ignored me. You say we could trim but make no specific proposals, !vote no in the RfC, and remove the tags. Please forgive me for saying there's an appearance of stonewalling here. You and I tend to agree on most things. Please propose a constructive path forward. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to exaggerate. There's nothing to stop you from restoring the tags, or editing the material to reflect your concerns. But when other editors revert you, that's your cue queue to step back and consider that maybe consensus is not on your side. I dispute that inline tags recruit more editors to talk page discussions. It sounds nice in theory, but my observation is that that's not the case. Contrarily, tags can undermine the credibility of our content and that's not an equitable result when a small minority of editors support such tags.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot restore the tags due to the "consensus required" restriction. And I don't think your comment, "But when other editors revert you, that's your queue to step back and consider that maybe consensus is not on your side," is fair in the slightest. Some of this content was recently added, I removed it, then it was restored (in violation of arbitration remedies) by editors calling me a clown and a Spencer shill. So I raise my concerns on the talk page and they get ignored. That's not consensus. Again, you claim to believe that some trimming is appropriate but you refuse to specify or respond to my proposals. I am getting upset with you quite frankly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose the tags being in the article, but would be open to reducing the size of the Lede and changing some of the wording. I'll make a proposal below, but it's just a quick proposal and have no qualms with other editors editing the wording. Dave Dial (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: There is no 'consensus required' restriction on this article. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you. I haven't called you any names or ignored anything that you have wrote. To clarify my position: I'm fine with the content as is, but wouldn't object to slight trimming that ultimately improves the lead from a reader's perspective.- MrX 🖋 20:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, can you please weigh in on my specific proposals then? You can find them in the "Neo-Nazi" and "Charlottesville" sections above, and again in my !vote in the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.- MrX 🖋 20:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal on Rewriting the Lede

Not to be confused with the Jihad Watch blogger Robert Spencer (author).

For other people with similar names, see Richard Spencer (disambiguation).

Richard B. Spencer/Archive 5
Born	Richard Bertrand Spencer (1978-05-11) May 11, 1978 Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Nationality	American
Alma mater	University of Virginia (BA) University of Chicago (MA) Duke University
Occupation(s)	Author, publisher
Known for	President and director of the National Policy Institute Executive director of Washington Summit Publishers
Political party	Independent
Movement	Alt-right Identitarian movement White supremacy
Spouse	Nina Kouprianova

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white supremacist. He is president of the National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers, both white supremacist outlets. Spencer originated the term "alt-right", which he considers a movement about "white identity".

Spencer has been described as a neo-Nazi and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions, and was one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. During the rally an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others. Spencer denies any role or culpability in the attack, but has been sued in federal court.

Spencer has been banned from entering 22 of 28 European Union member states,as well as Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland.Spencer has also been banned from entering countries with nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments., citing Spencer's Nazi rhetoric and the Nazis' genocide of Slavic "Untermenschen" during World War II.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion

This is definitely an overall step in the right direction, so I support it over the current version. However I have serious objections as it cuts too much in some areas and not enough in others. In the "too much" category I'm bothered that it says nothing about his self-description, the Nazi salutes, or his campus speeches being cancelled. In the "not enough" category I'd include the details about killing and maiming as well as the "nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments" (which actually misrepresents the source). My suggestion is to take these changes piecemeal as we're unlikely to reach a consensus around a package deal like this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to a diff for these proposals in context. There's a lot to dissect here:

• Changing He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. to He is president of the National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers, both white supremacist outlets. This isn't a very dramatic change, so there's not much to say about it.
• Omitting Spencer rejects the label of white supremacist and considers himself a white nationalist or white identitarian. I can understand taking out that sort of hair-splitting, but mentioning those two terms in the lead might be worthwhile, even if many sources consider the first in particular interchangeable with white supremacism.
• This part is entirely omitted: In early 2016, Spencer was filmed giving the Nazi salute to Milo Yiannopoulos in a karaoke bar. In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews. 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. His appropriation of Nazi rhetoric on these and various other occasions has attracted the scorn and ridicule of the press. I suspect that that's going to be a nonstarter, or at least will distract from the rest of the discussion, since that part has already attracted a lot of discussion and debate. If we are going to talk about it, it ought to be a separate section. My feeling (as I said above) is that the incidents there are some of the ones he's most famous for and need to be in the lead. Rewording or trimming this down might be doable, but I think trying to pull it out entirely is unworkable given the support it had in past discussions. In any case, if we want to reach a conclusion on reducing the size of the lead, we should avoid falling back into past disputes, which suggests that this text should be left mostly as-is for now; there's probably room to paraphrase some parts and remove less significant aspects - the first and last sentence here seem less important than the center - but removing it entirely goes beyond what can reasonably be called just trimming for length. The use of Nazi propaganda in that speech is, as I mentioned above, one of the things he's most famous for, and as I recall several sources refer to that speech as the one that made him famous.
• This:
  • Spencer was one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others. Spencer denies any role or culpability in the attack, 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. 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 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.
  • ...is merged into the paragraph above it and reworded to this: ...and was one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. During the rally an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others. Spencer denies any role or culpability in the attack, but has been sued in federal court. Some of this trimming might be reasonable, but a key problem here for me is the removal of the cancellations of his speaking engagements, which based on my reading of the sources about him is another major thing he's famous for - his status as a controversial speaker is more important than it looks (and perhaps more important than the current lead implies) due to the debates surrounding it.
• This:
  • Spencer has been banned from entering most countries in Europe, including countries with nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments. During a 2014 speaking tour in Hungary, Spencer was mocked by the Hungarian Népszabadság for his claim to be a "racial European," which the paper called an invention with 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. In the aftermath of the controversy, Spencer was banned from Hungary, and publicly condemned by nationalist president Viktor Orbán. He was banned from the United Kingdom in 2016 and subsequently banned from entering the entire Schengen Area in October 2017, thus prohibiting Spencer from entering (in addition to other European states that banned him) 22 of 28 European Union member states, as well as Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland. The current government of Poland—often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state—has also banned.
  • ...is changed to: Spencer has been banned from entering 22 of 28 European Union member states,as well as Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland. Spencer has also been banned from entering countries with nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments, citing Spencer's Nazi rhetoric and the Nazis' genocide of Slavic "Untermenschen" during World War II. Again, this is an obviously-controversial change. Some trimming might be reasonable here, but this implements a change that was proposed above and which clearly hasn't met any sort of consensus yet. If we're going to discuss how / if to characterize the nations that banned him, we should do it separately in the above section where that discussion is already taking place.

Summary: The main cuts here obviously tread into controversial content disputes that are better discussed individually. EDIT: I also want to indicate strong opposition to the idea that the lead needs significant cuts for length - this revised lead is too terse for such a high-profile figure. This doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, and this suggestion does touch on a sentence or two of natter or digression that could be trimmed or reworded; but that would be because they're unnecessary, trivial, digressions, or otherwise don't belong in the lead, not because of the lead's overall size (which, again, I feel is proper). And there's also some parts (especially his status as a controversial speaker) that could actually use elaboration. I feel that the current lead is generally the size we should shoot for and that this version trims too much overall. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I partially endorse Aquillion's point about "nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments" banning him - and then giving one country's reasons (Poland) for why the 'countries' (plural) banned him. It would be a great deal more efficient to simply name the countries and not characterise them unless the relevance can be made clearer. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a significant improvement on the current version, which reads like a series of arguments about labeling. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Scorn and ridicule by the press

Can we please see if we can find reliable sourcing for this sentence in the lead section? "His appropriation of Nazi rhetoric on these and various other occasions has attracted the scorn and ridicule of the press." Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A full week and no response. I've deleted the sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to be legalistic about it, fine. But compiling articles that say the same thing--i.e. mentioning that 'many sources' say x rather than a b c d e f g h i j k say x--is not synthesis. Synthesis involves using two different premises from different sources to form a new premise not found in any of them. This is a common misunderstanding among new and inexperienced users, so don't worry about it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

New lede

I have made a significant effort in cutting the previous lede down in response to some of the thoughtful criticisms I saw here. The current lede is as follows:

proposed lede

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white supremacist. He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Spencer rejects the label of white supremacist and considers himself a white nationalist or white identitarian. Spencer created the term "alt-right", which he considers a movement about "white identity." Spencer advocates white-European unity, criticizes Euroskepticism, and advocates the creation of a white ethno-state that would be open to all "racial Europeans," which Spencer considers a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. Spencer has been described as a neo-Nazi and has publicly engaged in Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions. In early 2016, Spencer was filmed giving the Nazi salute to Milo Yiannopoulos in a karaoke bar. In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews. 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. Spencer promotes his views through writing, media appearances, and college speaking tours. He was a featured speaker in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which an alt-right supporter drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and maiming two others. Spencer denies any role or culpability in the attack, but has been sued for allegedly acting as a "gang boss" at Charlottesville and inciting the killing. After three other supporters of Spencer were charged with attempted homicide following Spencer's October 2017 speech at the University of Florida, Ohio State and several other universities cancelled Spencer's appearances, describing him as a menace to public safety. In 2018, Spencer suspended his college tour indefinitely. The majority of European nations, including the entire Schengen Area, and nations with nationalist or ethno-nationalist governments, have banned Spencer and condemned his message. While promoting his message in a controversial speaking tour 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, and for his call for "European unity" through a revival of the Roman Empire. In the aftermath of the controversy, nationalist president Viktor Orbán banned and condemned Spencer. The current government of Poland—often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state—has also banned and formally condemned Spencer, citing Spencer's Nazi rhetoric and the Nazis' genocide of Slavic "Untermenschen" during World War II. References

Please offer your comments/criticisms on SPECIFIC content in this lede. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I strenuously object to the premise of this discussion, which is inherently disruptive. There are many good faith objections to specific portions of this proposal that have already been raised and discussed in numerous discussions since Steeletrap began POV pushing here, and some have received no pushback at all. This proposal completely ignores all of that feedback and attempts to lock in a slew of non-neutral, unverifiable BLP vios. Demanding that editors such as myself (not just me) repeat all of the objections we have already raised reflects a listening problem and an attempt to railroad the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

can you please name the BLP violations? We've been over this already and your allegations of BLP violations were "strenuously" rejected. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I already did, some multiple times. Some were rejected, some were not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're misremembering and projecting. Nobody took your BLP claims seriously. If they had the admins would've sanctioned me instead of threatening to block you. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you're the one who hasn't been participating in discussions the past couple of weeks. I suggest you read them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is going to block me. Nobody agrees with you here. Steeletrap (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What Steeletrap said. Nobody -- literally nobody -- took your BLP claims seriously, even after your condescending offers to admins "walk [them] through" them. At this point, it's clear this has less to do with any imaginary BLP violations and more to do with you being right. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a substantial improvement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Succinct and well-supported. So, good. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see anything controversial about saying that Spencer has been accused of spreading Nazi rhetoric. Indeed, I don't see much controversial with us stating unambiguously that Spencer is a Nazi, and what little I do take issue with is based in pedantry surrounding the precise definition of "Nazi". It's all technicalities, in other words.

I do, think it would be a major BLP issue to claim that Spencer is not racist, not a Nazi, not a white supremacists, however. Those would be controversial claims. But calling Spencer a Nazi, or racist, or especially softening that down by reporting (factually) that He Has Been Accused of Spreading Nazi Rhetoric and Has Been Called a Neo-Nazi should be an entirely unremarkable thing. I guarantee you that Spencer freely admits to all of these things in private, and only denies anything publicly because it is politically expedient for him to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• After spending the last 40 mins looking at the article, the talk page, the archives, I can say two things. 1. Fleischman if you continue to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against other editors as you have above, you are in the running to be banned from the article. Do not accuse other editors of 'POV pushing' unless you are going to open up a discussion at AE, AN, or ANI and have diffs to hand. 2. Pretty much every BLP concern you have raised (where you actually taken the time to explain them) has been soundly rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)