Talk:National Policy Institute

This seems a poor page
While descriptive excerpts from a relevant speech and self-desciptive liturature are both proper and useful, I hardly think it should stand as the bulk of an entry, especially for an actively lobbying, political interest group. Self-description is frowned upon by Wikipedia, is it not? Neither organizations nor individuals are encouraged to create or alter their own entries. So it stands to reason that self-describing speech should not be excerpted as the primary decription of a given entry. I believe this was done as a way of creating the text out of only verifiable facts, in order to stave-off partisan bickering over a potentially politically charged entry, but it still amounts to laziness. That bickering (more properly, "discussion") is part and parcel of the Wikipedia process and any effort to get around that inevitably results in subverting the democratic intent. I would suggest that interested editors write their own copy and use the relevant speech(es) and literature as supporting references, rather than as the body of the entry. 24.21.86.142 09:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

- --As of this time and date Squarespace has decided to drop the NPI-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C430:6710:B991:F4A9:E294:7DBC (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific part of the article you're referring to? I only see a couple of sentences in which we draw directly from NPI speeches/literature. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sound advice! Thanks for coming along and sharing your suggestions. Also: ❌ There's no suggestion for an edit or any actionable change to the article. Thanks again. Edaham (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Identitarian
Would it be fair to label them part of the identitarian movement? They identify strongly with it; and I don't see reasons not to include them. DrawingLol (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source that makes this claim? Dyrnych (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Richard B. Spencer's own words on the manner. I'm not sure if that counts enough however, as most articles just have Spencer himself saying that. I don't believe his views are that significantly different then the identitarians, although the identitarians would argue that they are not white supremacists. DrawingLol (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * His words are not enough. The reliable sources generally say he's a white supremacist or white nationalist and that he merely calls himself an identitarian. It raises the question of whether he is using the term as a euphemism in order to avoid less mainstream-friendly labels. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the sanction notice bit about consensus required
No one is deliberately violating it but you now must follow it and get agreement. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lobbying group
I agree with. The "lobbying group" sentence in the lead section should be removed. It is not verified by the cited source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it?: "This was the white nationalist lobby — the alt-right — coming to town..." and This new generation is aiming to influence Washington in Washington’s own ways: churning out position papers, lobbying lawmakers and..." We should be cautious that this isn't yet another attempt by the organization to downplay the white supremacist label, since this has already been discussed sufficiently. If we remove the lobbying group, we would have to replace it with something to explain, in the lede, what the group actually does, because otherwise it's too vague to be informative. Obviously, independent sources are required. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This clarification has nothing to do with the debate over labels. Since I am an interested person--I am the Executive Director at NPI--I am specifically avoiding debates like that one. I am able to correct the "lobbying group" label because it is an entirely factual matter. NPI's articles of incorporation, which are on file with the Virginia Corporation Commission, specifically indicate that the group is not to lobby legislators and government officials, and NPI has never conducted lobbying activities. Evan McLaren (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Evan for disclosing your COI. Please read WP:COI and refrain from editing the article in the future. You are permitted to engage in talk page discussions however as long as you're upfront about your NPI role. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Greyfell is correct: That source is describing a lobbying group, and even directly called them a lobby. That's not even a little ambiguous. Evan McLaren's claims above, if true, serve merely as a technicality and do no contradict the LA Times source cited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Read closely. Those sentences are referring to an unspecified bunch of white supremacists who attempted an event sponsored by the NPI. They're not referring to the NPI itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read closely. Notice how the article never actually differentiates between those folks and the institute itself? I did. It's not uncommon for journalists to refer explicitly to attendees of an event when implicitly discussing the group that organized the event. I've seen it done with Antifa, the Trump and Sanders campaigns and others.
 * Reading carefully and literally is often a good thing, but we have to keep in mind the norms and idioms of the medium, or else we can lose the forest for the trees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right but the article isn’t about NPI. It’s about a new generation of white supremacists. This isn’t just semantics.
 * I’d support something saying that the NPI is somehow associated with an effort among white supremacists to present the movement is a better light and influence public policy. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article codifies "the white nationalist lobby" and explicitly includes NPI in that group. And it's not the only source to refer to NPI as lobbyists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, then change the source. With the existing source I’d support saying that NPI is part of or helps to organize the white nationalist lobby. That’s quite different from saying it acts as a lobbying group. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, do you take issue with any of these sources? ,, or   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid college newspapers, but the ABC13 source looks acceptable to me. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the ABC13 source. I didn't remove the other because there's an attributed quote there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The quote has a similar problem. Spencer was explicitly referring to the alt-right, not to the NPI. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I'll remove the quote. I'm still going to leave the old ref in place, to avoid breaking further uses and because I still content that the article is including the NPI in the group they refer to as a lobby. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article both of you are discussing doesn't explain its use although I don't know what came of that.  Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "doesn't explain its use"? Do you mean it doesn't explain the use of the phrase "lobbying group" or that it doesn't explain why we used it (note the use of the past tense there) as a source? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the former I think but looking at it again I withdraw that comment. It does say that its activities are lobbying. Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Our argument/discussion seems to have gone like this (although I'm unaccustomed to Wiki Talk pages and may not be following): I said we're not a lobbying group; next, someone--I think you--pointed out that the LA Times described us as a lobbying group. That's simply citing a third party making the same conclusory (and incorrect) statement.Evan McLaren (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to read up on Wikipedia's policy regarding primary and secondary sources. You and your organization are primary sources. These are not automatically disallowed, but in general, especially when an organization is saying it's not something in order to defend itself from a negative perception, and reliable secondary sources are reporting that it is, in fact, that thing, we value the secondary sources. I would think the reasons for this are obvious, but in case they're not, take Charles Manson as an example. Despite Manson's claims that he was not a cult leader (he's a primary source), the first sentence of his article describes him as a cult leader - because that's how reliable secondary sources describe him. Rockypedia (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rockypedia is correct. Please review our verifiability policy. There is nothing wrong with citing conclusory statements, as long as they come from reliable sources. The LA Times is generally a reliable source. No offense, but you are not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct, you are not. It may of course be a different perception of lobbying, but the description in the LA Times seems the normal one. Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not the ultimate source for the facts I am citing, over which there is no room for debates about perception, negative or positive. Fact: NPI's Articles of Incorporation, which are on file with Virginia State Corporation Commission, specifically provide that the organization is not to engage in lobbying activities. Fact: There is no evidence or record of NPI ever having engaged in lobbying activity, apart, apparently, from unsupported conclusory statements by third party observers. The notion that a claim is evidentiarily sound because it comes from a designated "reliable source," or that such a claim has validity over other better-supported claims, is very silly. Evan McLaren (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it's a matter of definition. Virginia defines lobbying in this way: "A lobbyist is any individual who is employed in any manner or who is reimbursed for expenses, or who represents an organization, association or other group for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence executive or legislative action through oral or written communication with an executive or legislative official; this includes anyone who solicits others to influence an executive or legislative official." This source discussing Virginia's F grade in 2012 from something called the "State integrity investiation" points out that "experts point out, the definition of lobbying only covers direct contact with legislators or with the governor about the issue being lobbied. Contact with other lobbyists, with those who employ lobbyists, and with those at lobbying firms who conduct research, draft laws, or develop political strategies often goes unreported. Social events with legislators, other lobbyists and persons of influence can also go unreported." In other words, so long as you don't make direct oral or written communication with individuals in Virginia executive or legislative roles, you aren't breaking your articles of incorporation. You can however if I'm right directly contact anyone else, and of course there are ways that you can try to influence legislation without direct communication with individuals. You can also, for instance, lobby a university to get them to allow a speaker to talk on their campus. Doug Weller  talk 12:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hell, just drumming up support for a cause in the D.C. area draws legislative attention to it, and thus serves as a form of lobbying. There's plenty of ways to say "we don't engage in lobbying" while lobbying one's ass off.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Evan, as Doug and MjolnirPants are saying, there are different meanings of "lobbying group," some legal, some not, so it doesn't seem appropriate to rely exclusively on the definition of your choosing. Moreover NPI's Articles of Incorporation, while disclosed to whatever Virginia state agency, are not published and therefore cannot be a basis for verification. Even if they were published, they are self-serving and unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unserious. There aren't different definitions of "lobbying." It's a specific thing that we specifically do not do, and the responses here--the least serious and relevant of which is ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants' below--amount to a concession along those lines. Wiggling out by equating all influence or advocacy with "lobbying" is invalid. Consider showing some integrity and amending the Wikipedia entry accordingly. Evan McLaren (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unserious. There aren't different definitions of "lobbying." It's a specific thing that we specifically do not do, and the responses here--the least serious and relevant of which is ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants' below--amount to a concession along those lines. While it may bother you to be called out the way I just did, that would be your problem and not mine. I assure you that my response was quite serious, and while I'm unwilling to argue with a representative of the NPI (I believe your currently president can attest to there being a more preferred ways of responding to your group's claims) about the statements I made, I'll happily provide a mountain of evidence to support them if any interested third parties wonder whether I was simply engaging in some hyperbole. And no; no reasonable person would conclude that the responses you have gotten here are tantamount to an admission that the NPI does not engage in lobbying. That's just ridiculous. It's "unserious". So perhaps you yourself should consider showing some integrity and... Well, changing everything about your political and social views is probably too much to ask, so maybe consider showing some decorum instead by respecting the fairly obvious consensus of this discussion, hmm? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that, as a group based on pushing an unscientific view of race and advocating for policy based on a combination of those views and fringe political science views, all designed to support a preconceived outcome, the NPI's reliability for any statement, whether about themselves or others, is highly suspect. Even the assertions that the NPI's activities are not in breach of its articles of incorporation, or that they're not violating local or federal law in their activities cannot be considered verifiable if sourced to the NPI. Sorry Evan, but when your opinions on the issues you care about are both demonstrably wrong and demonstrably harmful, you don't get to be taken seriously by any academic endeavor. Not even Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my comments can be taken to mean anything else that even if the NPI adheres to its articles of incorporation it can still lobby, and clearly does. Doug Weller  talk 21:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me? If so: I agree. I did not take your comments to mean anything else. My comment was that (and why) we cannot even take the NPI at it's word that it adheres to its articles of incorporation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was responding to User:Evan McLaren. Doug Weller  talk 11:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lobbying: Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. In the article: Spencer was the headline speaker at a 2016 NPI conference held in Washington, D.C., and celebrated the election of Donald Trump as "the first step towards identity politics in the United States",[21] and "the victory of will" (a reference to a Nazi propaganda film). That sounds like lobbying, whether or not it meets one of the undoubtedly many legal or other definitions. This is like saying "It wasn't stealing" because you don't meet one of the legal definitions for robbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk • contribs) 23:34 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues
It seems to me that this article is bias towards a certain group of people's ideologies. I have tagged this article with the intent of establishing neutrality over a long-term measure until the article has been revised. I hold completely opposite views from what the subject of this article holds, that doesn't mean everyone who disrespects it has to disrupt this article with biases. No matter what anyone's views are, neutrality shall remain on Wikipedia forever. If you have an account, you agreed, in Wikipedia's terms of service, that you shall remain neutral, or else, expect a warning, expulsion, or an IP temp-block depending on the severity from any neutral admin on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has stated that anyone may remove the tags ONLY when the issue of neutrality has been fixed (i.e. adding more information supporting the subject so internet users may cross examine the information and decide for themselves). 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And I have removed your tags, because your complaint is so vague and non-specific that it's non-actionable. If you have something other than an attempt to sound authoritative, please bring them forward. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And that is very funny. What you did is hypocritical considering you removed the tags for no reason what-so-ever. It is very obvious that you have decided to remove the tags when in fact if you read the article yourself, then you would know it is skewed mostly to one side. What you did is authoritative and it seems as if you have a conflict of interest with this article. I'm not writing an essay on why I need to put tags up on a small wikipedia article in development. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋  [talk] 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You must describe specifically what you believe is non-neutral about the article and propose specific actionable changes which you believe would make the article compliant with policy. In the absence of such specific statements, there is nothing here to discuss and no valid reason under policy for the tags to be applied. It's not up to other users to play a game of Twenty Questions - either say what you think is wrong and how it should be fixed, or move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What you did is hypocritical considering you removed the tags for no reason what-so-ever
 * Apparently the word "because" is not part of your vocabulary. Hint: the clause that immediately follows the word "because" contains the supporting evidence aka "reason" that you were claimed was not there.
 * What you did is authoritative...
 * "Authoritative, adj; able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable". So you agree with me, and hey, thanks for the vote of confidence.
 * ...and it seems as if you have a conflict of interest with this article
 * So we can add "conflict of interest" to the list of words and phrases you're unclear on. Or would you mind explaining this "conflict of interest" of mine? --Calton &#124; Talk 04:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny. I love how bias people in the media twist information like you. Actual definitions of "Authoritative: adj. Having or arising from authority; official. | adj. Demonstrating authority; commanding." Your definition isn't wrong; however, you clearly cannot distinguish what pre-context and inference is from pre-cursor information. I was setting up a theoretical parallel between what your actions were (removing tags out of feelings) to what some authoritarian government would do to censor information. The only thing on the planet that cannot conceptually reason with background and provided context, other than you, would be a computer. You have my vote of confidence that what you did is authoritative.
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, you are somewhat right, I will have to explain later what the issue is or fix it myself if it is too time consuming to write out an essay. Hopefully it could easily be solved.
 * Apparently the word "because" is not part of your vocabulary. Hint: the clause that immediately follows the word "because" contains the supporting evidence aka "reason" that you were claimed was not there.
 * ??? What you stated has no context or relevance to what this discussion is about and it seems as If you are distraught about this subject to be in such rage. When did the word "considering" provoke you to educate no-one with a in-accurate elementary-level definition of the word 'because'?
 * So we can add "conflict of interest" to the list of words and phrases you're unclear on. Or would you mind explaining this "conflict of interest" of mine?
 * Yes I can explain, you mentioned what could be an inside-joke, on your very own user page, referencing your first name and Pete Buttigieg. You use the word authoritative to describe what I wrote and I am clearly no wikipedia official nor will I ever want to be. What I originally posted above was summarized information taken from Wikipedia's own guidelines and terms of service.
 * It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
 * I find this statement completely juxtaposing what you are doing now. This article needs to be cleaned up and somehow you are against it for no reason. This is the first statement on your user page and that is the header. There are dishonest sources and information in this article if you inspect it. I cannot fathom who would have a problem with that? The irony...
 * other than an attempt to sound authoritative
 * So you do agree with me compared to your definition you copied from the top search result online. There is no attempt involved, clearly it is facts and reality if you check it out for yourself. If you would like to call Wikipedia's universal rules as an attempt of reliability, think again. All I care about is protecting the integrity of free speech and freedom of the encyclopedia. You have conflict of interest against droves of people, whereas I respect everyone who follows wikipedia's guidelines, no matter what their views are. I can't believe I had the urge to waste my time responding in such detail. I am done bickering with you. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋  [talk] 09:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and we do not traffic in "both sides" false equivalence. If there was some other purpose to your edits you will have to explain them here, but please cut to the chase. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Free speech is irrelevant here, and there is no such thing as "freedom of the encyclopedia." Wikipedia is expressly by policy not a free speech platform. We're a project to build an Internet-based free-content encyclopedia. A user page joke about a presidential candidate does not create a "conflict of interest" so you should drop that immediately. Which sources used here do you claim fail the reliable sourcing guidelines? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What I had written: "...because your complaint is so vague and non-specific that it's non-actionable"
 * What you wrote: "...you removed the tags for no reason what-so-ever"

A reminder again: the clause that follows "because" IS a reason. Which makes your claim false on its face. Your attempt to sound clever by calling it "hypocritical" -- despite its logical impossibility -- didn't help yourself.

it seems as If you are distraught about this subject to be in such rage Look up "psychological projection" when you get the chance.

So you do agree with me compared to your definition you copied from the top search result online. Boy, are you confused. I wrote that you attempted to sound authoritative spouting off about rules you don't understand -- and no, I didn't need to copy any definition from anywhere to write that, since I know what it means -- and, like some video-game player looking for just the right combination of words as a cheat code, you failed, then tried to echo my words to sound clever, and failed again.

...referencing your first name and Pete Buttigieg. Your "explanation" for claiming that I have a conflict of interest is, bluntly, incoherent nonsense. And I'm being charitable in calling it nonsense. Assuming that you actually know what my first name is, what in the Sam Hill would that have to do with Pete Buttigieg and/or a conflict of interest? No, wait, I don't actually care, because I don't want to imagine what knots you'll twist yourself into.

So, once again: WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC, ACTIONABLE COMPLAINTS? --Calton &#124; Talk 16:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Does it still exist?
The website is dead Prezbo (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)