Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2

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


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


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


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


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


 * What reliable sources are there? Most of the references referring to him as anything along the lines of "white nationalist" are not all that reliable; in fact, some of them (MediaMouse, Common Dreams) openly describe themselves as left-wing, and I'm not exactly sure that it's a good idea to call such sources reliable in the context of an article on a prominent right-winger. Is there at least a way to replace that sentence with an equivalent quote? --Nortaneous (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The factthat he has agreed to be interviewed for a book called "contemporary voices of White Nationalism" (published At Cambridge University Press) suggests that he does not find that label very problematic. And in anycase it is a sourceable view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Several peer reviwed sources call him a "white separatist" (hardly more flattering?) (Any Way You Slice It: Why Racial Profiling Is Wrong RT Shuford - . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev., 1999; Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA.

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

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

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

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

Changes to lead
I have made some changes to the lead which I think adequately reflects what most of the reliable sources that describe Taylor's person, views and work agree on. They all agree that he is more moderate than many US white nationalists, and a centralizing figure in that environment arond which white nationalists and supremacists of different persuasions can gather, several sources describe him as central figure in lending legitimacy to the extreme views. Most sources also explicitly mention him in relation to racism either saying that he is not a racist or that he is (the fact that this is an issue also among his supporters means that the accusations are notable and hav to be included in the article and the lead - relative to the prominence of them in sources (which is high)). Sources also frequently mention his public advocacy for racial profiling. I have added all this to the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new wording; it is much clearer and more diplomatic than what we had before. I have also added a short sentence about him refuting accusations of racism, as I talked about above. Let me know if you think it is reasonable. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm having second thoughts about the word "accusation" in that sentence, so let me know if you think there is a better way of phrasing it. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the page number in Swain and Nieli for him being a "moderate"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also curious about this too. I think the material on page 87 agrees with the general characterization of him and his beliefs that is written in the lead, but I don't see anything specific there about him being on the moderate side of white nationalism. Maunus? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Swain and Nieli group the people the white nationalists interview into three groups by arranged the degree of racial extremism in their views: "White Rights Advocacy", " White Nationalism/White Separatism" and "White Supremacy/Neo-Nazism". They locate Taylor in the first group. They give this reasoning for that: "the interviewees see themselves as defenders of the legitimate civil rights of white people against what they allege are a host of racial double standards that work to the detriment of whites. Each of the three interviewees in this section deplores current affirmative action policy and what they contend is a general practice on the part of the mainstream news media of gross underreporting of black-on-white crime. Taylor and Levin also believe, like most of the other interviewees in this volume, that there are significant genetic differences between blacks and whites, and that these differences are largely responsible for the higher black crime rate and the poorer performance of blacks in academia. demic settings. The policy prescriptions of the people in this grouping tend toward moderation, however. None of the three people interviewed in this first section, for instance, openly support the creation of a racially separate state or believe that the basic structure of the American political regime should be radically altered because of current racial divisions." So this places Taylor within the most moderate group within the larger group of "White nationalism". There is a slight contradiction in the fact that Swain and Nieli refer to all of the interviewees as representatives of white nationalism, but also call one of the separatist group nationalist. I think this has to do with the fact that they are basically about the degree to which the interviewees believe racial groups should be separate nations - either through simply "sticking up for ones own group", through separate governments, or by eradicating certain groups. Another reason I think it is fair to call Taylor a moderate is because he is noted in some sources for being a "Teflon racist", the kind who balances on the edge where it is difficult to pin him down on actual "hate speech".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That looks like a good basis for the citation, and in my Google Books preview that starts on page viii. Unfortunately the next page is cut off, and I can't see it, so I can't verify things either way. I see my local university library has a copy, so I can check it up the next time I'm there. (I have no idea when that will be, though...) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

164.111.225.154 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He is a racist. An admitted one. His opinion that race is biological is his opinion, not fact. Just like any racist. Tribal does not equate to race, and the fact he chose to make youtube videos about differences of the "races" is the same opinion as "Black's". There were tribes of some "race" for millenia. To state that race=tribalism is false, scientifically. Race is a social concept, "blacks" are not a subspecies of "whites". Youtube sent me here, by listening to his bullcrap. He's a white supremacist. My opinion, yes, but race is not a separate species as has been proven by science, biological. Ethnicity is not a subspecies, yet ethnicity, diet, and geography can contribute to differences in biological differences, but does not make humans separate species. RupJana (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Taylor may be a racist and have some problematic associations, but he isn't an anti-Semite. Wikipedia should not be allowing people to use his entry to claim that he is.Tuppertwo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAJsmQp01c — Preceding unsigned comment added by RupJana (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

7/28 Edits
Substituted "race realist" for "racialist" and "white nationalist." Based on recent interviews, this seems to be a more accurate description of Taylor's views. Removed reference to Prof. Robert Weissberg. This is irrelevant. Pointing out Weissberg's religion smacks of "some of my best friends are..."Tuppertwo (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be that he also or now describes himself that way, but if so we should add the new terms but not delete the old ones. "In 2005 he said X. In 2010 he said Y." As a biography, this should tell the story ofhis life, not just the current version.   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, provided there is direct documentation of "In 2005 he said X." Unfortunately, the sources cited do not offer evidence of Taylor saying, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist." In the recent Examiner interview, Taylor is asked, "Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?" and responds, "No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire." The note/link attached to "racialist" in the text refers to an article from FAIR in which Taylor is the "self-described 'racialist' and 'white separatist' editor of The American Renaissance . . ." but this article provides no evidence of Taylor describing himself that way. Also, in the Vdare piece, the "citizenism" debate between Sailer and Taylor, while Sailer describes Taylor as a "white nationalist," Taylor acknowledges defending white nationalism without declaring, "I am a white nationalist." If I defend France from accusations of colonial imperialism, that doesn't make me a Frenchman or an imperialist. If a source quotes Taylor saying directly, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist," provide a link and by all means use it. Otherwise I think you'd have to say, "Taylor describes himself as a 'race realist' while others describe him as a 'racialist' or 'white nationalist.'"Tuppertwo (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That proposal sounds logical. Go ahead.   Will Beback    talk    20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's disgusting and disgraceful of you to whitewash a matter of solid, objective fact that he said what he did. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and he said that "I could be described as a 'white nationalist'" in 2005.


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


 * Nice try. I notice that you have also whitewashed all of these nasty hateful things said Taylor said about non-Europeans from this article while refusing to defend that edit. Instead, you did two edits at the same time for two different blocks of text to obscure yourself. But you didn't could on the eagle eyes of other Wikipedia editors.
 * 1)With respect to your whitewashing of anti-nonwhite material said by Taylor, you have given no justification. So revert that edit immediately.
 * 2)As for the other issue, the 'white nationalist' term, you are dodging the question and not responding to fact. He wrote: "I could be described as a 'white nationalist.'". He did not write that he is one, which is what you are falsely claiming that I am trying to put into the article. He merely said that he could be described as one-- that is, by other people.
 * You errenously claim=
 * in order to be fair and objective, without a source documenting that Taylor says, "I am a white nationalist," one would have to say, "Others describe him as a white nationalist."
 * But this is what the article already says. Your handwaving is pathetic. The article says that Taylor has said that others can call him a 'white nationalist'. That is what is in this article.
 * I can see from your editing history that you never edit Wikipedia except on this page. And you have a pattern of making Taylor look nicer and nicer with your edits. This won't do. Wikipedia is not meant for single-purpose people with an agenda like you. Please stop this foolishness at once! 129.120.176.206 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * And by the way, the plural of "emphasis" is "emphases" not "emphasises."Tuppertwo (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAJsmQp01c RupJana (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC) My opinion, his words.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Views
Could someone explain their positions in the recent removal of various viewpoints of Taylor? Have these been discussed before? At a glance, the sources look rather poor... --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the recent edits again, we've had an IP removing material some of which belonged and some didn't, and an editor with only 5 edits all concerning Taylor revising the lead. I've reinstated some material to the lead, but I think that the Japanese material doesn't belong. As for holocaust denial, the material that was in the article probably doesn't belong but Taylor has always had an uneasy alliance with holocaust deniers and that should probably be in the article. See the SPLC piece at and an SPLC interview with someone who worked for Taylor here.  This ADL paper shows some links. As does this ADL blog about the AMREN conference this month. I've seen his association with Mark Weber mentioned in other places. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


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

Board members
The board members of the New Century Foundation can be found on publicly available 990s on GuideStar or the Foundation Center. In 2012, they were Jared Taylor, George Resch, and Wayne Lutton [Source: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/616/616212159/616212159_201212_990O.pdf]. Jared Taylor denies even knowing a white supremacist [Source: http://www.amren.com /features/2013/01/liberal-name-calling/] and, as is noted in this Wiki, has said Asians are "objectively superior" to whites by "just about any" quantitative measure. George Resch certainly can't be described as a "notorious white supremacist" (a Google search for "George Resch white supremacist" returns nothing applicable). Wayne Lutton may be described as "anti-immigrant" or may be said to have a white racial consciousness, but he has never made statements that would indicate he is a "white supremacist" [Source: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/wayne-lutton].Wiki sourcer732 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The form is not a reliable source as people do not have to be mentioned on that form and the statements refers to past board members. Amren is a primary source and not reliable, no past or present board members are named as being white supremacists. It states that the organisation has had "some of the most notorious white supremacists in the United States" on its board. It is sourced to a reliable source. Jarkeld (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The source is reliable. You can take it to Reliable sources noticeboard if you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does it deserve mention in the article at all, much less the lede section? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Taylor is its president? And because a generic reader of Wikipedia is not going to know what exactly the New Century Foundation is. Ditto for NPI. To a generic reader these would be just random acronyms or bland names. But these are not your run-of-the-mill orgs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see how a briefer description of American Renaissance might be worth noting in the lede (and without their self-serving description), but I don't see why characterizations of the board members of New Century Foundation deserve mention in the lede.
 * What's especially troubling is that those descriptions are all we have about the organizations in the entire article.
 * How about moving the info on American Renaissance and New Century Foundation from the lede to the body, and provide a much briefer introduction to American Renaissance in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do agree that there is not enough on NCF and AR (also Occidental Quarterly) in the body of the article. If I'm not mistaken there used to be some but it got removed (it's been awhile since I looked a this article, and it's one of those that has near constant monkey business going on). I'll try expanding that portion. However, since Taylor is the president of NCF it should be mentioned in the lede. And since it should be mentioned, it should be briefly described. I also do agree that we could do with a shorter description for AR in the lede - just as long as it's an accurate description.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and trimmed the lede. Care to start a section on AR/NCF? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History
This source, at least with regard to Taylor, is poor. It claims he started American Renaissance in 1994, when in fact it was 1990. It claims the New Century Foundation has an editorial board, which is not true of either that organization or its project, American Renaissance. It also claims "some of the most notorious white supremacists in the United States" are on that non-existent board. The author cites no sources for this claim and names no names. Even if it is referring to the board of directors, this is not true (see above).Wiki sourcer732 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. We don't refute sources with original research. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'm going to remove the claim that he is Jewish from the infobox in the absence of reliable sources. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015
He is also the spokesperson for the Council of Conservative Citizens

Haloman800 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Corrections to Taylor entry
ON GENETIC INTERESTS

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

Old version:

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

New version:

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

WHITE SEPARATIST

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

HOLOCAUST DENIAL

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

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

Views on Interracial Relationships

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

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


 * There are several sources which say that Taylor either is or calls himself a white separatist. These two are probably the best I found in a few minutes of searching: [ http://www.amren.com /interviews/donahue/20030210/]   Will Beback    talk    17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I hadn't realized that the version I had reverted to yesterday and on March 29 had the Akisada rumor still in it. As you can see in my edit summary on March 29, I agree with you that it is much too spurious to be mentioned here.  As for the rest of the things, I will look at them all more clearly when I have some more free time.  See here for a bit of background info on the Holocaust denial dispute.  Soap Talk/Contributions 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jared Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080425090412/ http://www.amren.com :80/store/paved_with_good.html to http://www.amren.com /store/paved_with_good.html

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

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

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


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

Journalist
Looks like sources indeed describe Taylor as both an author and a journalist: Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not contesting that. I'm sure sources describe him as lots of things, but the lede should summarize the body. I don't see any explanation of his activities as a journalist. Is being an editor considered part of that? If so, then Wikipedia is implying that American Renaissance is a news outlet, which, being generous, is controversial. Has he worked as a journalist somewhere else? If so, the article doesn't say where, so it's not clear why this is a defining characteristic. Not all pundits or non-fiction writers are jounalists. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The way you laid it out makes sense. I agree that the subject's current occupation is not journalism. I will remove the identification of as a journalist from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He was a conventional journalist for many years in his youth, then set up Amren, of which he is an editor. "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists...", so yes, being an editor is part of being a journalist by wikipedia's definition. Maybe you or I could argue about whether you think he is or isn't in this context, but I think that distinction is better left to reliable sources who have frequently called him a journalist. Zaostao (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Very few people know Taylor primarily as a journalist, even in the sense which includes editors, because American Renaissance is not widely accepted as a news outlet. That he was a journalist in the past, briefly at Washington Post and again at PC Magazine (sort of) are distractions. MOS:BLPLEAD advises against "overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable." I don't see strong signs that he's notable for his journalism, specifically, so I think that applies here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Grayfell (talk) on this point. He's notable for one reason only: his promotion of white nationalism as an ideology. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources that focus on Taylor are writing about him because he's a white nationlist - not because he's a journalist (or author, for that matter). I'd be all for taking "author" and "journalist" out of the lead because that's simply not what he's known for. At a minimum, the main descriptor for him should be "white nationalist" in the lead.
 * While other editors may be (and have been) more diplomatic than I am, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade here: the only reason any editor wants to eliminate (or move further down) the term "white nationalist" is because of the feeling that that term paints Taylor in a negative light. To that I would respond, if a subject makes his primary mission in life the promotion of white nationalism, why on earth would Wikipedia describe him in any other way? I'm changing the lead back to the way it stood for months. Rockypedia (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being very hostile about this, where have I tried to take white nationalism out of the lede? And where have I said that I think white nationalism paints him in a bad light? Wouldn't I try to take out, I don't know, maybe the white supremacist and racist mentions if that was my aim?


 * He spends over 10 years as a conventional journalist, then is the editor of a journal/publication/webzine/whatever for 20+ years and sites such Washington Post state him as being "Jared Taylor, journalist", yet he's still not a journalist? And he's not an author despite publishing multiple books and there being a bibliography section in the article? I'm sorry, but that is simply absurd. Zaostao (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he's not a journalist, or an author. I said he's known for, and notable for, being a white nationalist. Do you dispute that? Rockypedia (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I said he's a journalist and is known for being a journalist by WaPo among others, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * One more point to remember - the lead summarizes the body. There's nothing in the body about Taylor being a journalist. Add it there first, and then we can talk about whether it's significant enough to add to the lead. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2
's arguments are convincing. This would be my preferred version for the lead. Moreover, the second sentence in the lead states that the subject is an editor, so the journalism angle is already covered. Add: I combined the first two sentences for a more comprehensive opening: K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Samuel Jared Taylor is an American white nationalist and the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a webzine often described as a white supremacist publication.
 * That's alright I suppose, but the 'author' description must be re-added as there's a whole books and bibliography section that's not represented in the lede. Zaostao (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He's an author of books primarily related to white nationalism. If he'd been writing horror novels, or anything else, at the same time that he's been running AmRen, and reliable sources were talking about those books as the primary focus of multiple articles, then I could of course see adding "author" in the first sentence of the lead. Since he hasn't, and they haven't, calling him an "author" in the first sentence would be like calling Tiger Woods a serial cheater in the first sentence of his article - yes, that fact is true, but it's not what he's primarily known for. Rockypedia (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He's an author, he's written several books. The content of those books are related to a variety of topics, more so race realism than white nationalism yet race realism has been removed from the lede. The Wall Street Journal also states him as "Jared Taylor, author" and then afterwards mentions his ideology, yet you personally think differently so the article must reflect your opinions instead of what is published in the WSJ? I'll ask you again, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you're still clinging to the random order of nouns in one Washington Post article as justification for your whitewashing, when the overwhelming majority of sources refer to Taylor as a white nationalist, first, foremost, and sometimes as nothing BUT a white nationalist. I like the Washington Post, too. Here's one article from them - it's titled "Hear a white nationalist’s robocall urging Iowa voters to back Trump". I'll give you three guesses who the article is about. Here's another hint, that article doesn't refer to him once as an author or journalist.
 * I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. If you want to change the lead, report me to an admin. Watch how quickly you lose that battle. Rockypedia (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He's notable enough as an author for The Wall Street Journal to describe him as such, he has written several books and the body of the article contains detail about his work as an author and a bibliography section -- isn't the lede supposed to represent the body?


 * I've also never argued against the white nationalism tag so i'm not sure why you keep creating that strawman, and you didn't answer my question, since you're just disregarding sources such as the WSJ because it doesn't fit your narrative, are you saying your own opinions are more trustworthy for an encyclopedia than reliable sources? If that's the case, why shouldn't everyone just write articles based on original research and feelings? Zaostao (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please drop the stick. As we've all said, he's an author and some sources mention that, but that's not the threshold Wikipedia uses for the lead. Most of his books are published by his own foundation, making them essentially self-published. None of the content in this article on his books, including the two published by reputable houses, is supported by independent sources. Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources for notability, and the lead summarizes notability. Michelle Obama is a gardener, Tiger Woods is a philander, and Jared Taylor is an author. All of these are sourcable, but none of them belong in the first paragraph of their articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Rockypedia (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Author', or some other mention of his books, has to be mentioned somewhere if the lede is to represent the body. Also, strangely, Michelle Obama is stated as a lawyer and writer in the first line of her article. Shouldn't the "I'm not disputing that she once worked as a lawyer, nor that she's a writer. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what she's known for. She's known for being Obama's wife. Period. End of story." reasoning apply for her too? There's reliable sources supporting that she's a writer and there's information about her work as a writer in the body of the article, sure, but she's mainly known for being Obama's wife, right? Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of that article is "She is married to the 44th and current President of the United States, Barack Obama..." Was that supposed to be a gotcha or something? Read MOS:BLPLEAD. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "second sentence", yes; unless you're saying the white nationalist description should be moved to the second sentence in this article, i'm not sure what you're getting at. Also doesn't that "activities they took part in or roles they played" line in the link policy and your Mrs. Obama example, along with the lede having to represent the body, mean the author description of Mr. Taylor be in the lede? Zaostao (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was intended as a quick comparison to point out how absurd it is to pick one specific (and flattering) aspect to the exclusion of all greater context, not a direct 1:1 comparison, so dwelling on this further becomes pedantic. Michelle Obama is far, far more notable than Taylor, and the lead of her article is naturally going to be longer and arranged differently. While her notability is derived from her husband's, it's not confined to that, and unlike Taylor, there's a glut of sources about her, including dedicated book-length biographies by reputable publishers. Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist. Period. End of story. I hope it's obvious that Taylor and Obama are radically different in many, many ways, and their articles should be, also. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You were the one who brought us Mrs. Obama, not me, so don't complain about the comparison. Also, the "Taylor's notability on the other hand is confined to being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you believe your own opinions on the matter trump that of sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top of this discussion stating that "Taylor is a prolific author", and to believe that is kinda WP:OR, no? Zaostao (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus in this discussion, on this talk page, is that Taylor's notability is confined to being a white nationalist. Zaostao is the only editor to disagree. If Zaostao disagrees with this consensus, his next option is to take it to arbitration. This discussion is simply going in circles, arguing with one editor who is acting like a dog with a bone, and I recommend we all close it. Rockypedia (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to use OR instead of reliable sources? I still see no reason as to why author would not be included; there's reliable sources stating Mr. Taylor as an author, there's a bibliography section and lots of detail in the body of the article about him being an author. Also, wouldn't it be expected that someone would be like a "dog with a bone" in a discussion with two sides? Isn't that what talk pages are for? Or am I supposed to argue against myself and support the use of OR instead of reliable sources? Zaostao (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, you're taking us in circles. If you want the lead changed, take it to arbitration. I'm done wasting time on this talk page. I'll weigh in if and when you elevate this. I look forward to the justification you'll present. Rockypedia (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not answering my questions so I have to ask them again. He's stated as an author by sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the book cited at the top states him as "a prolific author", the article contains a bibliography section as well as a lot of detail on him being an author, but, because of your personal opinion, only white nationalist can be mentioned in the lede? Answer this, do you think your own personal opinion supersedes reliable sources? -- if not, why are you disregarding reliable sources for your own opinions? Zaostao (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 3: RfC?
A RfC may be another option. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Author or not, prolific or not, he's only notable for being a white nationalist. The more I think about it, the more I think it's focusing on trivial details to misrepresent the central point the sources all make. Were not saying he isn't an author, we're saying that it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead just because a handful of sources use that word to describe him. Saying he's an author in the lead is implying that's why he's notable, which is a subtle kind of editorializing. He's not an author and a white nationalist, as though those were otherwise unrelated. He's an author on books about white nationalism, most of which he published himself. His one and only non-white-nationalist book is obscure and is not substantially covered by any sources. It's incidental to his notability. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To use your example again; "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is an American lawyer...", why is that mentioned in the lede (and as the first description) when the vast, vast majority of people know her as Mrs. Obama only? Isn't that editorialising by your definition as it implies that's what she is notable for? Also, you've clearly not read any of Taylor's books, or maybe don't know what white nationalism is -- imagine black nationalism of Malcolm X (who's stated as a "Muslim minister"), except white and with less advocacy of violence, as they're much more related to "race realism" than white nationalism, yet the "race realist" bit was taken out of the lede. And I have to say this again, the "only notable for being a white nationalist" statement is only true if you think your own opinion on the matter is more important than sources such as the WSJ which deem his status as an author notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author". Zaostao (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles. An RfC may be a good idea to get wider inputs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not had my questions answered as to why author would not be included so I have to ask them again.


 * Since there are reliable sources who think that Taylor's status as an author is notable enough to call him "Jared Taylor, author," or even "prolific author," since there's a bibliography section and a lot of detail about the fact that he's an author in the body of the article (lede should represent the body?) and since there's only personal opinions (how does any editor have the authority to state that a subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree?) stating that he's not notable as an author, why should the lede not state that he's an author? Zaostao (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You've had your questions answered by multiple people. Repeating the question over and over isn't productive just because you don't understand or agree with the answers. If you want to put in a proper WP:RFC, go for it, but first rephrase it so that it's not absurdly loaded, please. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you mind showing me where my question was answered? Fundamentally it comes down to you (random editor(s)) stating that the subject is "only notable" for one thing when reliable sources disagree. What authority do you have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when RS disagree? Please try to answer this without saying that I'm going in circles or repeating myself. Zaostao (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 4: The Answer
Here it is the answer: "I'm not disputing that he once worked as a journalist, nor that he's an author. The point here (which you keep ignoring) is that that's not what he's known for. He's known for being a white nationalist." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What authority do you (random editor(s)) have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when WP:RS disagree? Zaostao (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, and in this case the consensus is against using "author". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You just agreed that he is an author, and reliable sources state his status as an author is notable enough to proclaim him as such. Representing NPOV would be to use RS to describe who Jared Taylor is, fairly and without editorial bias. Zaostao (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say he isn't an author, but not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence, and that's decided by consensus about what the sources say. The consensus as I understand it is that sources may mention that he's an author, but they all overwhelmingly focus on his white nationalism, not his self-publishing career. That's as clear an answer as I can give, so I see no point in playing this game any further. Be mindful of WP:3RR, which it looks like you've already gone over accounting for previous discussions on this. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention his being an author -- you removed the American authors category, I think. The article mentions that he "authored" books, and has a bibliography section, but doesn't actually state that he's an author anywhere. I agree that not everything belongs in the first sentence but his status as an author is not even disputed by yourselves so i'm not sure why it shouldn't be in the lede. Also, despite how it may seem, I don't actually care about this that much or even think it's of much importance having it in the first sentence as it really won't influence many people's opinions - nor do I think white nationalist is anymore of a slur than black nationalist, but author must be included somewhere if a NPOV is to be represented so how about this:


 * Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.


 * If you don't care about it that much, then you're just being disruptive for no good reason. If you do care about it, file an RFC, as has been recommended by at least three editors. Your personal opinions of white nationalism vs. black nationalism are a non sequitur. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See italics. Obviously I care to extent and obviously you do too or you wouldn't have challenged it. You also didn't comment on the suggestion... what is the point of talk pages exactly? Zaostao (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 5: Please start an RfC
The current consensus is clearly against this wording. The discussion is now in five parts, and is going in circles. This is beginning to border on disruptive editing with the 3RR. I suggest an RfC be started to avoid endless discussions here. Otherwise, pls see WP:STICK. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is wrong this wording?


 * Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.


 * Zaostao (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is not how RFC works, if that's what you're trying to do. You need to follow the instructions at Requests for comment. Additionally, the wording is not acceptable. It's far too leading, for one thing, and for another it's too open-ended. See Requests for comment. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to start a RfC, I was asking a question. I really don't see why this needs to be escalated, what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We've already explained that multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you said "not every factoid about him belongs in the first sentence." I made a concession and you're not responding to the concession, you're still talking about the previous suggestion. What is wrong with 'author' being in the second sentence? It doesn't interfere with the white nationalist description in any way, and you admitted yourself, agreeing with reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal, that he is an author. So what is wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are a liar: You keep saying "reliable sources such The Wall Street Journal" as if there's more than one. You cherry-picked the one article out of hundreds about him that happens to describe him as an author, and even that article isn't about him; he's mentioned only in passing. You know exactly what you're doing. He's completely self-published - you can write a book, and publish it yourself, but that doesn't make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about yourself. The fact that he has self-published books is mentioned in the lead. Consensus is that that's the most accurate way to describe it. You refuse to accept that consensus. Fine, I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong - knowing you're wrong is enough for me. Case closed. You want to re-open it? Take it to an RfC. Don't want to do that? Your other option is to sit there and leave the page alone. You will never make the change you want by forcing it unilaterally. It's not going to happen. That's not the way this site works. Rockypedia (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is more than one, just look even to the top of this discussion. The book cited there lists Mr. Taylor as a "prolific author." Also, saying that he's "completely self-published" is simply an untruth; read the article, specifically the bibliography section, he's not "completely self-published." Although maybe you're just being hyperbolic. Also, you haven't answered what is wrong with the above wording. It's completely different to all else which has been brought up before yet it hasn't been commented on. Zaostao (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 6: WP:NOTAFORUM
This discussion is no longer about an improvement to the article (as the proposed wording is not deemed an improvement and has been rejected). I suggest the discussion be hatted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've asked all three of you what is wrong with this wording:
 * Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published.
 * and none of you have said what is wrong with it. Creating new sections to deflect questions is the reason why I have to ask these questions again. And then you state that i'm "repeating myself" despite the fact that you never actually answered my question. Please just answer, what is wrong with the above wording? It doesn't interfere or "bury" the white nationalism description, and all three have you agreed with me that Taylor is an author. So what is wrong wrong with the above wording? Zaostao (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations in lede
I removed the text which was not supported by sources. The previous sources were: New sources have been added but still none support the claim he "promotes racist ideologies." I have no objection to including this text if suitable sources can be found. Please do not continue to restore this text until consensus can be established that suitable sources exist. The previous consensus - based on a wordpress blog, an article that doesn't address claim, and an SPLC listing, carries no weight.
 * A wordpress blog, unusable for BLP claims of racism: http://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/student-group-h/
 * A NY Times article, which, although usable did not support the claim Mr. Taylor promotes racist ideologies: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/us/conservatives-voices-enter-clinton-s-dialogue-on-race.html
 * A listing by the SPLC with no secondary sourcing.

Here is a list of current sources claimed to support the statement he "promotes racist ideologies" Many of these sources don't even make the claim - can those supporting its restoration pare them down so we can analyze and discuss. D.Creish (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0123-02.htm
 * https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance
 * http://www.salon.com/2014/10/11/americas_virulent_racists_the_sick_ideas_and_perverted_science_of_the_american_renaissance_foundation/
 * http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/NC/20070413/News/605102164/WM/
 * http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/alt-right-conservative-movement-embraces-trump-campaign.html
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-alt-movement-emerging-force-2016-race/story?id=41647165
 * There is no wordpress ref. I've provided secondary sourcing for the splc. If your issue is the word "promotes", "adheres to" or "espouses" works just as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no wordpress ref because I removed it several hours ago. I'm examining the sources you and VM have added but so far I don't see the claim supported. The fox news sources for example, does not claim Taylor "promotes racist ideologies." My issue is not with the word "promotes" - it's that we require sources making that claim explicitly. It's not sufficient to say he promotes white nationalism, which most consider a racist ideology, therefore he promotes racism - as much I agree (personally) it must be explicit to satisfy BLP. Can you point me towards the ones in the list that do? I've edited my post to include your most recent source. D.Creish (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you did not remove the wordpress ref, I am actually the one who removed it. You reverted that, along with my addition of other, reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: The newly added ABC source, which I've just read, also does not support the claim. They quote an SPLC representative who identifies the American Renaissance journal as "a racist journal." but do not explicitly claim Taylor promotes racist ideologies. D.Creish (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To add material to the lead covering these issues, no additional sources are necessary -- all that's needed is to summarise what's already in the article regarding his promotion of racism. Summarising what's in the article is what the lead should do -- and there's no need to provide additional sources to do this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim he "promotes racist ideologies" is found nowhere in the body. There are tangential, supported claims. I see two dead-linked sources (SPLC and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and one working SPLC source. Are there others? D.Creish (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Promoted racist ideologies" is a perfectly reasonable summary of what appears in the body. I think it would be unwise to dispute this...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Inflammatory claims about living persons in language not directly supported by the sources is not reasonable. D.Creish (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Others have used language for which "promoted racist ideologies" is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase. Given his own statements ("when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears"), there are no grounds to dispute those published assessments.  The idea that all of this was a "BLP violation" is of course preposterous.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

has restored the text with the edit summary:. I'm having difficultly accepting the sincerity of that claim when the first source restored is a dead link. Did you examine the sources before restoring and calling them reliable? D.Creish (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you're taking a more constructive approach now, finding sources yourself instead of blanking material. Congratulations!  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your condescension intended to have have a constructive effect? First you suggest I "take a break" claiming I was incorrect about the dead link because you mistakenly read the version history. Now you remove that comment when you realize your mistake, only to add one of no conceivable benefit. D.Creish (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a constructive effect is intended -- I encourage you to contribute to this article in a constructive way, rather than playing silly games. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is yet another source saying the same thing. In fact that one links Taylor's organization to Dylann Roof, the guy who shot up a church in Charleston (that is not in our Wikipedia article, I'm not sure if it should be). Anyway, the fact that Taylor's organizations promote racism is pretty much this article's raison d'etre. It's what makes him notable. If that weren't the case, there'd be no reason to have an article on Taylor. So yes, to claim that this is some kind of BLP violation is beyond silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There's already plenty of good sourcing in the article about Taylor's racist view: one does not to cite media outlets like CNN and Fox News. The Atkins source Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History is enough. I quote from there: Samuel Jared Taylor is the editor of the white supremacist journal American Renaissance. Taylor claims to not be a white supremacist, but he is critical of blacks being able to live in a civilized society. Instead of classifying himself as a racist, Taylor maintains that he is a racialist who believes in race realism. Remarks by Taylor indicate his racist stance..."

Another source is this. Taylor has edited a number of books with racist themes... The source gives lots of other details about Taylor's associations with white supremacist groups.

I have replaced the media sources with the book sources. One should really have the best sourcing here to avoid the zombie shambling on. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to add Taylor's insistence that he is not a white supremacist, but a "race realist", to the lead? Several sources, for instance the Atkins source mention it. I leave it to people here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Adjectives
Hi. You have repeatedly removed adjectives from the lede. Do you believe these are genuinely BLP concerns? If so, do you think the current method you have of remedying these BLP violations is the most likely to see an end to them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed these because of Masem's statements at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Zaostao (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's just one person's opinion. And an incorrect one at that. American Renaissance is not likely to be widely known so clarifying what it's about is not WP:COATRACK in the slightest. In fact I'm having trouble how WP:COATRACK would apply here at all so it's hard to see that statement as anything but a way of saying WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a clear example of WP:COATRACK to attack the subject indirectly. It's not only "clarifying" (as "many say x is bad" clarifies) but doing so in the lede, and not just the lede, but the first sentence of course. It's a shame that ideologues run wild on wikipedia, many things need not be polarised but unfortunately are. --Zaostao (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The adjectives in question are examples of contentious labels, which really shouldn't be showcased in the lead of an article. I see plenty of effort here to justify using them, with no apparent good reason other than to besmirch the subject of the article. Not good editing, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Besmirch? If an editor objects to a subject of an article being described as a white nationalist and the editor of a white supremacist publication, perhaps he shouldn't be actively editing articles about white nationalists and white supremacist publications. The information is factual, sourced, and informative, the last of which is important because American Renaissance isn't a well-known publication. Removing a couple of adjectives because you feel they're an "attack" makes no sense; WP:COATRACK doesn't apply here because the COATRACK is about an entire article existing just to describe a different subject - clearly not the case here. Rockypedia (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I "feel". What matters is that these terms are contentious labels, and should be avoided. Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are contentious labels? Since when? According to whom? Rockypedia (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To any sentient being that reads WP:LABEL and can understand its meaning. Lou Sander (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific, and cite a WP:RS. Rockypedia (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example of a hook, which is described in WP:COATRACK. "WP:COATRACK doesn't apply here because the COATRACK is about an entire article existing just to describe a different subject" is an inaccurate description of what WP:COAT is, and so not an argument. Zaostao (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. Are you arguing that Jared Taylor's article exists just to focus on American Renaissance? Rockypedia (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That is still an inaccurate description of what WP:COATRACK is about. See "The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there." Zaostao (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Part 2
As my last point was copy-pasted directly from the first sentence of WP:COATRACK, it's apparent you're just attempting to claim that up is down and left is right, so I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Rockypedia (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I saw at the AE page and that I see here is that because it seems that just naming and wikilinking American Renaissance is not sufficient to let the reader know that it is a webzine, creating a wanting "hook" to describe the webzine more, that the addition of the claim that it is a white supremacist publication is COATRACKing a label that affects the BLP atop it, given that the webzine does not appear to describe itself as focusing on white supremacy. It should be simply sufficient to say "he is editor of the webzine American Renaissance." with the wikilink and leave it at that, giving enough context to the reader. Of course, in the second para of the lead, pointing out the sourced criticism that he and the organizes/webzine he is part of appear to be proponents for racism and white supremacy, given this reputation with the press appears to be more of why he's notable, is reasonably fine. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the same argument I was making. I apologise for dragging you into this but there is rarely compromise or rationality from involved editors in discussions such as this. I will remove the hook with the BLP issue. Zaostao (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You will not, as your cherry-picked interpretation of COATRACK still doesn't apply here, and you had to go WP:CANVASSING to find even one other user to support your position here. You will not revert that edit again without consensus on this page. Rockypedia (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear unable to count, or maybe just didn't see disagreeing with your COATRACK BLP violation too. And saying my "cherry-picked interpretation of COATRACK still doesn't apply here" without any reasons why you think so is as strong an argument as your previous "you're wrong" one; try to actually respond to someone's points instead of just saying "you're wrong." We can all say "you're wrong," but I think most of us progress beyond such an argumentation style at around the age of 10. Zaostao (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that COATRACK is an essay to describe past behavior that editors have done to push POV aspects into other articles, which are disallowed per various policies and guidelines. Just because the essay describes coatrack articles doesn't mean that the concept only applies to such articles. As I pointed out above, the desire to give the webzine more context on this page can easily be used to coatrack just as much as a full article could. (If you need a specific policy, both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as well as WP:LABEL (all policies and guidelines) all apply; WP:COATRACK just makes an effective analogy to understand why this is a problem here. --M ASEM (t) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain to me how labeling a magazine white supremacist has BLP implications? Is the concern that readers will infer that the editor of such a magazine probably holds similar views? The article on American Renaissance makes it quite clear how the magazine views itself and how it's viewed by third parties. I'm also not sure how COATRACK applies here, since the rest of this article makes it clear what Taylor's race views are, so his editing of a white supremacist magazine shouldn't be considered irrelevant. clpo13(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Enough of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And honestly, I have no idea how this is suppose to be a WP:COATRACK problem. WP:COATRACK applies to articles as a whole, not to a couple of words within an article. The contention that there is a coatrack problem is so nonsensical and irrelevant that I don't even know how to reply to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The contention that there isn't a coatrack problem is so nonsensical and irrelevant that I don't even know how to reply to it. Enough of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Zaostao (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're the one claiming "coatrack" - which is a policy about an article as a whole - it's up to you to explain why it applies. I have no idea of what you're going on with this "hook" business. Does Jared Taylor run American Renaissance? Yes, yes he does. Has that publication been widely described as a "white supremacist publication" in a plethora of reliable sources. Yes, yes it has. Is this info useful to readers to want to know what Jared Taylor is known for? Yes yes it is, since this is pretty much the reason why we a have an article about the guy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I did explain how it applies, it's not my problem if you don't like your own non-arguments being parroted back to you. Is there already a second paragraph in the lede about what Jared Taylor and the organisations he's associated with supposedly promote? Yes, yes there is.
 * I reported for consistently edit warring and breaking 3RR here (as he has been sanctioned for on this article in the past), but  believed that Zaostao's violation of 3RR was fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was "fine", but thank you for deliberately mischaracterizing my close. What I said was that it wasn't a clear-cut 3RR case because of the potential BLP issues, where there are some excusable breaches of 3RR, and asked that it be hashed out at the BLP noticeboard. But I see that at least three of you decided to ignore me and keep edit warring. Therefore, the page is protected. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Yes, submitting to the BLP noticeboard is a good idea. Is anyone willing to do that? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Part 3
To : It is using American Renaissance as a hook to state something as fact about the nominal subject. It is the same as taking the second paragraph in the lede and hanging it on the AmRen coatrack to say "Samuel Jared Taylor is a racist," which is a contentious label and so has BLP implications. Zaostao (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC) (by the way, I didn't make any edits regarding the second paragraph as that criticism is relevant when it is in its correct place and stated with proper attribution)
 * The magazine is not well known to the general public, so including a short descriptor is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * are you disagreeing with how the magazine is described? what is contentious about it? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Read this talk page discussion and respond to my above argument. Zaostao (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I read it and I don't see an issue with adding the descriptor. This is a neutral way to describe a publication since that's what it's known for. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A short descriptor is one thing. A descriptor that prominently and blatantly features contentious labels is another; one can read WP:LABEL to see what might be contentious about this part of the article. The link to the magazine should be enough for readers who aren't familiar with it. The article on the magazine pretty reasonably describes what it is and what others have said about it. Lou Sander (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability
Jared Taylor has an article because he meets the requirements of WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. The material in the Career section, and the coverage it has received, demonstrate that. That his racial views are seen as controversial by some doesn't really have much to do with it. It is certainly not true, as some have asserted, that they are the only reason he has an article. Lou Sander (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing source for personal details in infobox
Currently the infobox lists Taylor's spouse and number of children. However the article body doesn't mention these details and there doesn't look to be a source for these details. Does anyone have a source for these details? — Strongjam (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Evelyn Rich
In response to this edit by who wrote :"Removed unsourced details from the infobox". Given that there appears to be some controversy of the alleged "jewishness" of Evelyn Rich, would it be agreeable to everyone to add a small section to the article stating that Jared Taylor the partner of Evelyn Beatrice Mackenzie Rich and that the couple have two children, and then source that to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That could probably be added to Judaism and anti-Semitism section. For now though I'll just revert my edit and add that as a source to the infobox. — Strongjam (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP/N notice
I've opened Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to get more opinions on the lede issues. --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Link to archived BLPN. Arguments for inclusion should address these objections. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those objections have already been addressed in that discussion. It's been archived, and raising the issue again there or somewhere else would be tendentious and overly accommodating to a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No they have not. When the majority of RS do not describe him as a white supremacist white supremacist shouldn't be included in the opening sentence. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC):

Proposed lede
Courtesy of Zaostao:



As I understand it the specific objection to this lede (which I support) is that it doesn't feature white supremacy/supremacist prominently enough. White supremacist is a contentious description not supported by the majority of sources - there should be no argument to feature it prominently. Are there other objections? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You understand incorrectly, as no editor said "it doesn't feature white supremacy/supremacist prominently enough", and I would immediately come down on any editor who said such a thing. By stating this as if it's fact, you are setting up a Straw man argument. Rockypedia (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * " White supremacist is a contentious description not supported by the majority of sources " - utter nonsense, it is too supported by the majority of sources, which have been provided numerous time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are objections -- this is quite clear from the BLPN discussion. I doubt we'll get anything new from a renewed discussion here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the linked discussion (linked here again), no specific objections were raised to Zaostao's proposed lede. A fair summary of the arguments were: it's not necessary, there is no consensus. It's relevant (but not helpful) to say there are specific objections without listing them. Can you list them? James J. Lambden (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is also bullshit because I'm the person who reverted attempts to remove this info so I should've been informed of the discussion. Yet, strangely enough Masem, nor anyone else bothered to do that. I object to Zaostao's proposed lede. We can restart the BLPN discussion if you'd like. For real.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A notice of the discussion was posted to this talk page with the heading: BLP/N notice. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This underplays the majority of reliable sources coverage of the individual. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources describe the subject as a white nationalist/advocate of white nationalism. My change reflected this and moved the contentious label to its correct position to fall in line with NPOV and BLP, which requires that we introduce subjects with a neutral, dispassionate tone and give in-line attribution for contentious labels, such as "racist", "white supremacist", etc.. Zaostao (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these points were considered in the BLPN discussion. My prediction that we'd get nothing new in this discussion is coming true...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you give a brief recap of the arguments made against the LABEL, BLP and NPOV points? I can't seem to remember any other than "no, white supremacist isn't a contentious label like racist"—which isn't an argument, it's just a baseless assertion, and when I asked for a RS stating that "white supremacist" does not equal "racist" (the article on white supremacism clearly states "racist ideology"), I received no response. Zaostao (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for a source that directly states that white supremacy does not constitute racism is asking for fellow editors to perform original research. We do not research things, we merely state what reliable sources do, and reliable sources have described Jared Taylor as a white supremacist. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is just obstructionism and bad faithed attempt to derail the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for RS to back up a claim is OR? See WP:LABEL and WP:BLP, if you want to include white supremacist, a "racist ideology", then you must either prove that it isn't a contentious label by providing some RS, or only list it with in-line attribution after introducing the subject with a neutral, dispassionate tone—which my edit did. Zaostao (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "prove that it isn't a contentious label by providing some RS"- We don't base our talk page arguments on anything other than the policies. When we discuss whether or not an adjective is contentious or value-laden in regards WP:LABEL, we are not using WP:RS to determine this, we are using Wikipedia's policies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RS is a wikipedia policy. Also you didn't cite any policies or RS supporting the claim that white supremacist, a "racist ideology", isn't a contentious label. Zaostao (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep trotting out the same circular arguments and editors keep telling you that if it's not in WP:LABEL, it's not a contentious label. Even if it were, WP:BLP specifically states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. Neither of those things is true - everything in the lead is well-sourced. Stop wasting everyone's time. Rockypedia (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "if it's not in WP:LABEL, it's not a contentious label" is simply untrue, as there are clearly ellipsis before and after the example terms.
 * And do you have anything other than your opinion that white supremacist, a "racist ideology", isn't a contentious label? If not, then you're not making an argument, you're just making, as I said above, a baseless assertion. Zaostao (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're interpreting that the ellipsis means that "white supremacist" is contentious? Please. Also noticed that you just ignored the BLP policy. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, go work on changing it. Meanwhile, stop wasting everyone's time. Rockypedia (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that despite repeated requests for specific objections to the proposed lede none of the hundreds of words above include one. Neither do the oppose votes below, which thus far offer the following arguments:
 * The current lede is fine
 * The current lede is well-sourced

There's debate as to whether the majority of sources associate Taylor with white supremacy. I've gone through the sources currently cited (discounting interviews and pieces by Taylor and associates) and categorized them. It shows the majority do not mention "white supremacy" when discussing Taylor. As it is a contentious label, featuring it prominently in our article when the majority of sources do not is inappropriate. (I'd encourage others to review my evaluations and tabulation.)
 * Your first link to the SPLC is not a source used in the lede. I added it to the infobox, it is only there to support the inclusion of his partner and number of children. It's a letter by his partner, Evelyn Rich, that the SPLC published unedited. — Strongjam (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I should have examined that source more closely (I assumed if anything it would be critical of Taylor.) I've removed it from the table and totals. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A few other sources to add to the table? NYTimes says "Until recently, Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, had never supported a presidential candidate." NY Magazine says "Earlier this week, Spencer and his guests, Jared Taylor, editor of the white supremacist site American Renaissance, and...". The Guardian uses "self-described “race realist”" and "alt-right American Renaissance website". The Diane Rehm Show uses his own language to introduce him, but ties the idea of white supremacy to the alt-right he represents. Politico says "In it, Jared Taylor, editor and founder of the white-supremacist magazine American Renaissance, is quoted...". SFGate refers to AmRen as White nationalist, but the title of the article refers to Taylor and David Duke as white supremacists. Last, as an odd duck, The Economist calls AmRen "an extremist website".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I explained, I thought a fair test re: "majority" was to limit my examination to cited sources. If everyone feels a better test would be a comparison of all RS we can do that instead, and I wouldn't object to others editing the table above to keep it current (perhaps moving it to its own section would be appropriate.) James J. Lambden (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a fair test and even your table doesn't show what you say it does. Two of your sources in the "No" column are non-reliable themselves, and shouldn't even be used in the article. Another, the Myth of Race one... well, I guess it doesn't call Taylor a "white supremacist", rather it just goes straight to the heart of the matter and repeatedly refers to him as a ... "racist".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

!votes

 * Oppose -- current version of the lead is fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my points made in this section, see above. Rockypedia (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * add comment: I find myself in agreement with  Eve rgr een Fir , in that we have enough sources to include both labels - "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" should both be used to describe Taylor in the first sentence. Rockypedia (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as the majority of sources do not associate Taylor with white supremacy, we should not include the phrase in the opening sentence of the lede. The proposed lede addresses that issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed lead is a blatant attempt to distance Taylor from the white supremacist mission of the magazine he founded, a mission that is well-sourced and should not be removed. Rockypedia (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim by James J. Lambden that " the majority of sources do not associate Taylor with white supremacy" is an unsupported assertion. The reason it's unsupported is because it's utter horseshit. Jared Taylor is only notable because he is an editor of a prominent white supremacist magazine. For. Fucks. Sake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. pg. 154. "The New Century Foundation (publishers of American Renaissance) is a white supremacist group led by Jared Taylor"
 * 2. pg. 59. "Samuel Jared Taylor is the editor of the white supremacist journal American Renaissance".
 * 3. pg. 97  ''"The CCC is closely associated with the American Nationalist Union, a white supremacist organization, and Jared Taylor has been called the 'cultivated, cosmopolitan, face of white supremacy".
 * 4. pg. 298. "In 1992, the white supremacist, Jared Taylor lamented the ostensibly growing influence of people of color in the United States"
 * 5. pg. 1341 "... as well as well-known white supremacists/separatists such as Jared Taylor"
 * 6. pg. 71 "when David Horowitz published the views of white supremacists Jared Taylor"
 * 7. pg. 508 "Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance magazine, a publication that espouses the superiority of whites (...) Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic"
 * 8. pg. 95 "Another white supremacist publication is the American Renaissance founded in 1990. Jared Taylor, a white supremacist and a board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, publishes this monthly journal in Oaktown, Virginia."
 * 9. pg. 216 "Virginia white supremacist Jared Taylor founded the New Century Foundation, a  pseudo-scientific 'think tank'"
 * That's just for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, these sources associate him with white supremacy. Similarly I could find a number that don't, using instead "white nationalist" (as does the proposed lede.) The question was whether the majority of sources associate him with white supremacy. I thought a fair test, rather than cherry-picking new sources, was to evaluate all sources present in the article as it stands. That evaluation (in the table above) makes it clear that at a minimum that a significant number of RS do not associate him with white supremacy - making it a contentious label. One could reasonably argue contentious labels don't belong in the lede at all. The argument here is even less forceful: contentious labels do not belong in the first sentence of the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, your table doesn't actually show what you claim it shows. Second, the way sourcing works is that we need only one reliable source per claim. So the sources in the article presently do not actually reflect the frequency with which Taylor is called a white supremacist. You seem to be saying "oh look, I found a couple sources which do not use the term "white supremacist" but only some other euphemism for it, and that only after I've carefully limited the sources I'm going to look at. That means that we can't include "white supremacist" in the article". That's completely wrong. It's a bullshit ploy to circumvent the policy on reliable sources - we have a TON of sources which call him a "white supremacist". You're arguing that because it's possible to find a few which don't use that exact wording, we have to include it. Like I said. Nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The literature, as well as our own articles, distinguish between white nationalism and white supremacy. He is undoubtedly characterized as a white nationalist. My advocation is that we use the most accurate characterization. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The literature, as well as our own article undoubtedly characterizes him as a "white supremacist" as over a dozen of the sources provided clearly show. So we currently ARE using "the most accurate characterization". But sure we can put both in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Policy issues not up for popular vote. Per WP:NPOV: "policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Especially for a BLP, a vote to ignore and violate NPOV and BLP does nothing but reflect the bias of the editor. "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material," so will need some RS to show that white supremacist, a "racist ideology", isn't a contentious label. Zaostao (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. You are asking for a source which equivocally states something like "white supremacist ideology is not a contentious label", or else you're gonna edit war on this article? And you're saying that people who regard this request as silly are violating NPOV? Are you freaking serious??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume by your spamming of ? that you agree that white supremacist is a contentious label? Regardless, yes, as I already quoted "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:BLP. This is a living person remember, very important. Zaostao (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are setting a ridiculous impossible standard which is completely unrelated to any Wikipedia policy. That's both bad faithed and disruptive as it pretty clearly indicates you're not interested in improving the encyclopedia but to push a particular POV. And the BLP burden has been met, then met once again, and then a semi truck arrived and dumped a couple tons of sources on it. One more time - the only reason this guy is notable is because HE IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST. If he wasn't, we wouldn't have an article about him. So it's beyond stupid to argue that the reason for his very notability should not be included in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is not up to a popular vote. If sources call Taylor "white supremacist" then that's what the article reflects. Wikipedia in WP:NOTCENSORED to reflect editors' preference for minimizing the facts for which the subject is notable for. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please put aside the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and look at the arguments being made, I've never argued for the removal of the white supremacist tag, I've simply advocated for it to be put along with the other contentious label "racist" and give it in-text attribution. You can see my edit here which did so, and white supremacist was still very clearly there in the lede. Zaostao (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Zaostao argue above that NPOV is non-negotiable. Yes, absolutely. But nearly all sources above tell directly that the man is a "white supremacist" writer or describe him as a white supremacist writer. That's why the intro should be modified slightly by replacing word "nationalist" by "supremacist" in the first phrase per WP:NPOV. Telling "nationalist" is actually misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the first editor to argue nearly all sources above tell directly that the man is a 'white supremacist' - because the claim is demonstrably incorrect, as shown in the tables and totals above. Is there a language fluency issue involved here? James J. Lambden (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh... no. Unless you're speaking of yourself. There's nine sources right up above. There's another seven or so (different than the nine I provided) provided by User:EvergreenFir. Even your table shows the same thing once you exclude the clearly non-reliable Frontpage and "American Thinker" (crap, didn't even notice that garbage was being used as a source!). So yeah, there's some comprehension issue here, but I don't think it's what you think it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that the lead should introduce Taylor as a "white supremacist" and a "white nationalist", as there are a wealth of reliable sources that describe him as both. Rockypedia (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead was fine, and this is a farce. This table is too simplistic and ignores too much context to be productive. Counting the number of specific mentions of "white supremac*" in a source proves very little (although it supports inclusion of the term if it did). The distinction between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" is euphemistic and loosely defined (except by white nationalists/white supremacists/white separatists/white advocates/racialists/race realists/racists/identarians/identitarians/etc.) so that sources calling him one over the other aren't particularly meaningful.
 * Taylor and his camp are [ http://www.amren.com /news/2009/08/what_we_call_ou/ fully aware of this,] and actively participate in the euphemism treadmill. These terms are all used to refer to the same basic ideology by almost everyone, and a major reason for their introduction was to make the ideology seem more palatable. Or at least until the term grows toxic and it's time to move on to the next one. Euphemisms are also intended to make it easier to define the 'opposition' in similar terms to transfer legitimacy from one to the other, such as calling the NAACP "black advocates" to make them seem comparable. This proposed wording change is another example of that kind of PR-minded silliness, and Wikipedia isn't the place for PR. Do we have any sources that actually say he is definitely a white nationalist, but is definitely not a white supremacist? Reliable sources don't usually really care about those kinds of games, nor should they, nor should we. Wikipedia doesn't use WP:EUPHEMISMS, and that's all this is. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is demonstrably false and shows a clear bias that you would conflate all these terms. Unless of course the Jewish "anti-racist" Tim Wise making the distinction between supremacist and nationalist makes him a white supremacist in your opinion too? Zaostao (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that source supports that they are essentially the same. Evelyn Rich, as Taylor's future wife, was presumably sympathetic to white supremacism, therefore it's ironic (according to Wise) that she would provide research useful to the Louisiana Coalition, who was opposed to white supremacism. Wise treats them as fundamentally similar, and is using them almost interchangeably, otherwise the line makes no sense. There would be no irony there unless the two were closely aligned. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fundamentally similar", yes, but not a WP:EUPHEMISM as you claimed. Not all fingers are thumbs. Zaostao (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to close -- there's no consensus to implement this change, and further discussion seems pointless. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We have enough sources to include both labels.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting an RfC
The discussions appear to be going in circles. It seems evident that consensus would not be achieve by continued discussions. At this point, it may be in the interest of the project for the interested party to start an RfC. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument is definitely going in circles, people just keep re-stating their positions over and over again. Those who are unhappy with the article in its current form should either start an RFC or drop the stick. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)