Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 4

Univ. of Florida covarage
Some interesting articles worth noting:

I also found this, which is probably good WP:RS for the article in general: --David Tornheim (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Section proposal: Spencer at UF
I proposing to add content and create a new section. The event seems significant, especially given the continued coverage due to the actions of Spencer's supporters. I wanted to propose it here first given that it's a BLP article.

Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida

 * On October 19, 2017, Spencer spoke at the University of Florida in a planned speech. In addition to Spencer, the speakers included Eli Mosley of Identity Evropa, a white supremacist group from California, and Mike Enoch, a white nationalist blogger.


 * The event reportedly cost the university, and ultimately the taxpayers, an estimated $600,000 in security costs. It drew hundreds of protestors who demonstrated on university grounds and heckled Spencer inside the venue. When drowned out by the protestors, Spencer suggested that they were engaged in the "heckler's veto", allegedly infringing on his first amendment rights. According to Clay Calvert, of the the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, non-violent protest, booing and suggesting that the speaker leave did not amount to such a veto. The speech and the concurrent protests were largely peaceful.


 * Later that day, three of Spencer's supporters were arrested on felony charges following an alleged discharge of a firearm, directed at protestors leaving the event. The three suspects were residents of Texas who had travelled to Florida to hear Spencer speak. According to the Gainesville Police Department, they had shouted “Hail Hitler” and gave Nazi salutes immediately before the alleged attack. Authorities said that two of the suspects had known links to extremist groups.

Citations to be provided. Any feedback? Another option is to create a new article, such as Richard Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida ; I believe that the event is already sufficiently notable. Or it could be 2017 University of Florida area shooting, with Spencer's speach as background. It's possible that the shooting, given the gravity of the charges, is more notable than the speach. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work. I haven't read all the articles carefully, but of those that I read, it looks fairly consistent with them.  However, I would be cautious with this wording, "When drowned out by the protestors, Spencer suggested that they were engaged in the "heckler's veto", allegedly infringing on his first amendment rights."  It gives the impression that a heckler's veto is by definition always an infringement of first amendment rights.  I do not believe it is that cut and dry, especially from reading our article on the subject and reading some of the case law.  (Our article on the subject is not that well-written FYI.)  Also, I do not believe Spencer is an attorney, so his opinion on what constitutes free speech is probably pretty murky, whereas if this came from his attorney it might make more sense.  So on that matter, let's stay close to what the source said rather than our own opinions about what a heckler's veto is, unless you are an attorney who knows that area of law.   The sentence that follows of the opinion by the Brenchner is clearly Brenchner's opinion and I am guessing he is an attorney.  If you give some of the sources you are relying on, that would help a lot, even if you don't assign them to specific sentences.
 * As for making a new article on just this one speech, I don't think it is sufficiently notable right now or separate from Spencer to justify its own article. The event where someone ran over a bunch of protesters probably is though.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am reading, "COMMENT: TINKER'S TIMELESS TEACHING: WHY THE HECKLER'S VETO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, 86 Miss. L.J. 409." It looks to me like the Heckler's veto doctrine is that one cannot be censored by the government, because of the heckler's behavior.  (See for example: ).  That's quite different than hecklers making so much noise you can't be heard.  The police did not shut him down from what I read, so I don't understand the claim of an infringement of his rights.  (This article agrees with my analysis.)  I would like to see the article where he or his attorney makes such a claim. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision: Spencer at UF
Revisions, with sources added.
 * On October 19, 2017, Spencer spoke at the University of Florida in a planned speech. In addition to Spencer, the speakers included Eli Mosley of Identity Evropa, a white supremacist group from California, and Mike Enoch, a white nationalist blogger. The event reportedly cost an estimated $600,000 in security costs. It drew about 2,500 of protestors who demonstrated on university grounds and heckled Spencer inside the venue.


 * When drowned out by the protestors, he grew visibly frustrated and said, "you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler's veto.” According to Clay Calvert, director of the the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, non-violent protesting, booing and suggesting that the speaker leave was not a heckler's veto in law. The speech and the concurrent protests were largely peaceful.


 * Later that day, three of Spencer's supporters were arrested on felony charges following an alleged discharge of a firearm, directed at protestors leaving the event. The three suspects were residents of Texas who had travelled to Florida to hear Spencer speak. According to the Gainesville Police Department, they had shouted “Hail Hitler” and gave Nazi salutes immediately before the alleged attack. Authorities said that two of the suspects had known links to extremist groups. Two of the suspects had participated in the August 2017 Unite the Right rally, where Spencer had been scheduled to speak.

Thanks for the feedback; I added the citations and implemented some changes. It looks like the shooting may be more significant than the speech. There's already pushback from other universities on the requests from Spencer to let him speak, citing "the events in Florida on Thursday". So there will definitely be some fallout from this for Spencer's speaking program. I did add the article where the scholar (Clay Calvert) discusses Spencer's claim on "heckler's veto". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revision and the refs.
 * Further comments:
 * Please take out ", and ultimately the taxpayers," which was not in the original article and is an inference. Although the claim is made prominently in this article, it has bothered me since I read it, because significant sums of money in public universities come from rich donors, foundations, trust funds, etc.  I think it's true tax payers paid a significant amount--especially for local and state police, but the amount U. of F. spent coming from tax payer money is probably very difficult to quantify.
 * I still has some issues with the "heckler's veto" stuff, but I don't have easy fixes at this point. One of the problems is that the WP:RS says that Spencer is complaining about a "heckler's veto," but it is written as an after-thought of [correctly] saying that the situation does not meet the legal definition of a "heckler's veto."  Without the original quote from Spencer or his attorney, it's hard to tell whether he is making a legal claim or not.  Because the reporting is weak, it's hard to make this clear in the article.  If you see a source that directly quotes Spencer or his attorney so we can be clear whether this is or is not a legal claim on his part, that would help.  --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Heckler's veto"
Spencer did mention it while on stage: Here's a related piece: Richard Spencer Has Only Himself to Blame for Hecklers, by Noah Feldman who is a law scholar: I think this discussion is worth including as the big part of Spencer's argument was free speech. PS -- I removed the reference to "taxpayers", leaving just the overall cost. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Fielding a variety of questions from audience members, Spencer said he does not provoke violence and disavowed comparisons to Adolf Hitler. He also accused the crowd of trying to impede his freedom of speech. “What you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler’s veto,” he told the crowd. "Richard Spencer UF speech", The News-Press
 * Hecklers who shouted down the white supremacist Thursday at his University of Florida speech were invited guests, not government crashers. They held tickets distributed by Spencer’s own National Policy Institute. So they didn’t violate Spencer’s free speech rights by drowning him out with chants telling him to go home.


 * Thanks that helps a lot. Rather the discuss, I'm going to just revise your draft.  If you don't like just revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made these minor changes to address my concerns about the heckler's veto: .  By quoting him directly, the ambiguity about whether he was making a legal claim or not is more evident.  The response by the attorney is clarified to refer only to the legal form of heckler's veto.
 * Otherwise, I did not see any other issues, except that this could be simplified:


 * "2,500...protestors who demonstrated...and heckled Spencer....Unable to deliver his prepared remarks, Spencer grew visibly frustrated ....heckler's veto. When drowned out by the protestors...non-violent protest, booing and suggesting that the speaker leave..."


 * I find quite a bit of redundancy about the heckling/being drowned out/not able to talk/protesting/etc. Deleting "Unable to deliver his prepared remarks," for example, shouldn't cost anything, since it is implied by "drowned out." Hence this change. There are probably some other ways of cutting down the word count. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you add a source for the direct quote? Not seeing it in any of the ones in the article around that section. I tried to look at the News-Press source above but am getting a 503 at the moment. I mostly ask because the grammar is weird. Right now the sentence reads When drowned out by the protestors, he grew visibly frustrated and said, "you are all engaged in is what’s known as the heckler's veto.”. It seems like either "is" was added by mistake, or the sentence needs to be preceded by "what". GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the Press-News' citation; I'm not getting an error message. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, it's working for me now too. I tried to add an archived version in case it's on a flaky server, but got a "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." error. Weird. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ,  Thanks for the catch and attempt to fix the link.  Sadly, it was in the original.  [That's why I usually copy and paste rather than risk retyping :)].
 * Question 1: How about simplifying it to:
 * (a) "you are all engaged in...[a] heckler’s veto."
 * (b) "you are all engaged in...the heckler’s veto."
 * or follow more standard quotation rules:
 * (c) put "..." where the "is" was
 * (d) leave the extra "is" in and put [sic]. I actually oppose this unless we can verify Spencer actually said it that way, which I doubt.  I think it was probably a mistake in the article that we do not need to call attention
 * or:
 * (e) leave it as K.e.coffman has it: removing the spurious "is"
 * I was actually planning on making the change to (a) or (b) last night before hearing about this glaring grammatical error, but I wanted to make sure the quote stuck first. I see that K.e.coffman ended did remove the "is", but also ended up restoring some of my simplifications, so now I'm not sure if (a) or (b) fits better not, depending on how we answer Q2 below.
 * Question 2: GorillaWarfare (and anyone else reading this), what is you opinion on which is better:  simplified language or restoration to more wordy version? [without regard to the extraneous "is" portion which needed to be addressed.]
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

William Regnery II - the man who spent years funding the racist right
See this article. Perhaps he should be mentioned here. He's the guy who funded the National Policy Institute. One of the authors of the report is Aram Roston Other sources (courtesy User:Aquillion)
 * Mother Jones article about him personally.
 * Daily Dot article about him personally.
 * Relevant mentions and quotes in Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Newsweek.

Looks to me as though we could have a section on him and his role in funding. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose At Wikipedia's National Policy Institute page, William Regnery II is mentioned only twice—both times identifying him as founder but saying nothing more. Blink and you'll miss him. To accord him an entire section here in our Richard B. Spencer BLP would violate WP:UNDUE. KalHolmann (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It does look like those sources contain info that could be used to expand the National Policy Institute article a bit. But not here. Rockypedia (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think an entire section would necessarily be appropriate (we don't have enough to fill a section anyway.) But I think a sentence or two could be worthwhile given that we have multiple sources identifying him as crucial to Spencer's rise to prominence.  --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if not a section then he certainly should be mentioned. He's such a shadowy figure his article was a redirect until a few weeks ago. Doug Weller  talk 07:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ^I agree. I saw his name come up when I was reading about Spencer--probably in one or more of the articles you mention.  Before I saw this post, if you had asked me, "Who is funding Spencer?" I would have said, William Regnery II.  Without more evidence to the contrary, I still believe that to be the case.  So yes, it definitely belongs in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He grew up in Preston Hollow, Dallas, so he's a member of the 1%. But yes, he was hired by Regnery to run the think tank. There should be multiple RS stating that fact?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ^I did think that of him or his parents, or that he had some huge trust fund, but now those other article left me thinking it was Regnery doing the heavy financial lifting. I agree it would be better if we could verify and support with more WP:RS.  However, I think with the WP:RS presented so far that Regenery deserves a mention in this article right now for his role in funding--whatever percent it actually is. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Like all think tanks, NPI fundraises.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017
Change from "American White supremacist" to "American White nationalist". A White Nationalist wants a nation dominated by his race of people, their laws and culture. It is not the traditional definition of a White Supremacist. A White Supremacist thinks they are superior in every way than people of color, especially Blacks, and would choose to lord it over them in every way within their own country. I suspect there are very few true White Supremacists still around, and Richard Spencer does not appear to me to fit that mold at all. Using this term as you have is outdated, sloppy, and very broad-brushed IMO. Thanks you for the opportunity to express my suggested change here in editing. 606jms (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A distinction without a difference, clearly intended to lend a veneer of respectability. Highly objectionable. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

University of Ohio
There is no such institution as the "University of Ohio." This text is linked to "Ohio University" (Athens, Ohio). However, it is The Ohio State University (Big 10 university in Columbus, Ohio) that is being sued. The editors should correct the text and the link.
 * ✅  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2017
Edaham (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus and as such the title defaults to staying at the stable title. While there was numerical support for the title change, there were also several issues in the discussion involving the overlap between policy and naming conventions as well as the BLP policy. The tension here exists between those arguing based on the naming conventions that initials should only be used when it is the most common name, and those arguing based on the title policy that the initials constitute a valid natural disambiguation. While the naming conventions do prefer the name most commonly used in reliable sourcing, all disambiguators are definitionally not the most common name for the topic, and the existence of these options within the title policy exists as an explicit recognition that the most common name cannot always be used. The title policy also refers to the disambiguation guideline, which makes it clear that if there is a natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. Those opposing the move presented sourcing showing that these conditions were met, making it a strong argument under our naming policies. That combined with the fact that this is a BLP and the proposed title is clearly a pejorative, there would need to be a strong consensus that the proposed title was clearly the best disambiguator, and that did not exist.At the same time, the discussion made clear that there were other possible disambigation terms that might be more acceptable and that it was even worth considering whether or not this article should be made the primary topic. A consensus did not develop around any of these, however, and given that there was strong numerical support for some move, I think it is worth exploring those options at some point in the future in a new RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (white supremacist) – Adding an RM template to existing discussion. Please see below for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous section name was "Disambiguation --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what the template says, Richard Spencer doesn't redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Should we move this page to Richard Spencer (white supremacist)? Nobody calls him Richard B. Spencer. Smooth alligator (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense, I would have no problem with that. Rockypedia (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the note at the top is wrong, then fix it. Yes, reliable sources label him as such, but I'm not sure if "Name (white supremacist)" is a proper thing to use to separate an article name from another, that seems to be going a little too far. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It's what he's notable for. It works for Don Black (white supremacist), Paul Fromm (white supremacist), and David Lane (white supremacist), and maybe more, I haven't gone past the first page in searching. It's certainly not a slur, as sources such as the NYT use it routinely to describe those are primarily known for advocating white supremacy. What's the issue in making the name of the article consistent with the subject's description in the first sentence? Rockypedia (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is what he is notable for, I'm not making any sort of pro-supremacist argument here, but I don't think it should be a first choice. The middle initial should be sufficient to disambiguate by. ValarianB (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that that's your opinion, but that's just not rooted in any policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be Richard Spencer, not Richard B. Spencer. And since there's other Richard Spencers, the parenthetical after the name is appropriate. Your unease with the term "white supremacist" is not a barrier; there's been massive discussion about that and the overwhelming consensus was that it's what he's notable for, and you seem to agree with that. If it's good enough for the first sentence, it's good enough for the title. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All rules have exceptions, and editors seems to be fond of WP:IAR when it can be reasonably justified. In looking through the requested move archives, it seems there was once quite a tussle over Sarah Jane Brown, as most did not want to define her as a wife, even if it arguably all that she is notable for. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I have been in favor of this for a long time. Maybe a year ago there was a discussion about this that did not lead to a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. I believe we have discussed this before. It should be in the talkpage archive. Lots of RS call him a "white nationalist" and lots of IP addresses keep reminding us of this. Besides, he may change his mind at one point. "Richard B. Spencer" is the most NPOV way to name this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See my response to ValarianB above; the same argument applies. In addition, if he "changes his mind" at some point (seems highly unlikely), we can always move the article again. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Give it up. It's going to create too much drama. We should be focusing on adding more referenced content. This is a distraction.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't find "give it up" a convincing argument for keeping the title of the article the same. Rockypedia (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Anyway, I've given you enough reasons for keeping it as it is (already discussed, been stable for a while, avoids drama, saves us time, remains consistent no matter what Spencer's views might become one day). Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Avoiding drama, is not a part of and has the potential to be in conflict with Wikipedia's objectives. Denouncing proposals based on your unwillingness to maintain bold adherence to reliable sources in the face of potential partisan opposition is contrary to our most basic editing policies. Edaham (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In a book published by the Columbia University Press, NPI is described as a "white-nationalist organization" (page 59 of Hawley's book). So yes, it's a waste of our time to argue over this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the subject has a verifiable middle initial that can be used to disambiguate. Barring that, I'd find Richard Spencer (born 1978) as a reasonable alternative format that appears to be used in some biographical articles. Or perhaps Richard Spencer (activist). A living person, as distasteful as much of the world may find him and his views, should not be defined by one ideological viewpoint to the point that it is a part of his article's title. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. That’s what is included in the first sentence of the article. He is notable for being a white supremacist. Unless we are prepared to change the first sentence of the article, this disambiguation is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Note: I added an RM template to this discussion; hope this works! diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason we don't have an article called "Malcolm X (Black Supremacist)" Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's factually incorrect? That rationale clearly doesn't apply here. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB. His middle initial is used by reliable sources such as the NY Times, Washington Post and USA Today. When a natural, neutral alternative name is available for disambiguation, it's almost always preferable to an artificial parenthetical qualifier, especially for a person. Station1 (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a stretch to me. WP:NATURAL specifically says "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called" (emphasis added). There's no way that Spencer is "commonly" called "Richard B. Spencer"; there's three good sources that you pointed out, and after a search I really didn't see one other good one (yes, there's a ton of verbatim copies of the USA Today article because of how they distribute their copy; I'm not sure that counts as commonly either). 99.9% of reliable sources, and really, online mentions in general, omit the middle initial. Rockypedia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to be a stretch; I just picked the 3 most reliable sources that popped up on the first page of a Google search as examples. Don't know why you can't find others, but in a few minutes I found examples at The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, MSN, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, The Chicago Tribune, and Getty Images, among others. It's a matter of opinion, of course, whether all those sources make it common, but it seems quite common to me. What is factually false, however, is the nom rationale that "Nobody calls him Richard B. Spencer". Station1 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:INITS is pretty clear: Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources....Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised. I don't think anyone here would say that using the middle initial is the most common format of this name in reliable sources. So, we should drop it and use a parenthetical, as is standard WP practice. Dohn joe (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, for the reasons stated above by Dohn Joe and others. Fluous (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. He isn't called Richard B. Spencer ever, so there's no acceptable form of natural disambiguation here (per WP:NATDIS's, don't use obscure or made-up names). The proposed disambiguator is much more recognizable. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Richard B. Spencer is subject's pen name. A recent RM (Talk:Ben Wattenberg) decided that although Ben Wattenberg's pen name on the covers of his books was Ben J. Wattenberg, his common name was Ben Wattenberg, with no other Wikipedia headers bearing that exact name. Here, we have nine men named "Richard Spencer" with three of them (Richard V. Spencer, F. Richard Spencer and Richard B. Spencer) indicated with initials. Since Amazon has a link for "Books by Richard B. Spencer" and The New York Times referred to him as "Richard B. Spencer" in the lead paragraph of their article about him, it would seem that "Richard B. Spencer" may be considered to be his WP:COMMONNAME. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, he's sometimes referred to as "Richard B. Spencer." Okay, point taken. But the rule/ guideline in WP:INITS says to use the most common format of a name. "Richard B. Spencer" is absolutely a minority usage. And how we treat other Richard Spencers is immaterial to this discussion. Perhaps those names should be changed, too! Perhaps a middle initial really is the most common name for them. Who knows? That's for a discussion on their article talk pages; not here. Fluous (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you would be changing his name to "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)", because that's what it would look like. He is never referred to as "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)", although he is sometimes referred to as "white supremacist Richard Spencer". Why not move it to white supremacist Richard Spencer then? He will no doubt use this in his fundraising campaigns--I don't think the guy needs more money--so no, terrible idea!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Three of the men at the Richard Spencer disambiguation page are known to use an initial and are so listed. The others are not and are thus listed with parenthetical qualifiers. Other than a handful of people who would be unrecognizable without their middle initials (such as actors Edward G. Robinson or Leo G. Carroll) almost no one is continually referenced via a middle-initial name. John F. Kelly is commonly known as simply "John Kelly", but the John Kelly dab page contains articles for 71 men bearing that name and Wikipedia must have a quarter of a million entries for people with middle initials. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to a very high degree and if so strict a standard for the use of middle initials were to be applied, very few main headers would be eligible for such structuring. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support some move. "Richard Spencer" is much more common in the sources. Not sure about the disambiguator, "white nationalist" would also do.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OpposeThis is a solution in search of a problem. Naming conventions indicate that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. WP:NCPDAB does offer the example of George H W Bush and George W Bush as being preferred over parenthetical. WP:INITS appears to be misused above as an argument for {white supremacist) when it actually supports the initial. It specifies "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." (emphasis mine) Note that it says "not commonly used" not "not the most common usage". Numerous examples of the middle initial in RS easily satisfy this requirement.
 * If, however, there is a consensus here to go with a parenthetical, (activist) would be a more neutral way of putting it that avoids BLP concerns. We should try to be as minimally controversial as we can, and labeling someone "white supremacist" in the article title is probably one of the most controversial labels that can be applied to a person. Since the article has been stable at this title for quite some time, the current title is commonly used by RS and is within policy, I am unsure what the motive would be for pushing so hard for this change to address a problem that doesn't exist. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:INITS does say to generally use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources. That most common format here is without the initial. If the parenthetical is problematic, I'd be open to another one. Dohn joe (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)" is not the most common name. Assuming "Richard Spencer" is the most common name but is ambiguous, we must choose between using a "B." or "(white supremacist)". Of the two, "B." is more common, natural, concise and neutral, all of which are preferred by policy at WP:AT. - Station1 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come now. This argument reflects a total lack of understanding of routine disambiguation practices (not to mention WP:TITLE, and WP:DAB). Veteran editors should not be saying that we should omit a parenthetical because it's not the most common name. By that logic we'd have no parentheticals at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we use parentheticals when necessary, which is often, but should not when unnecessary, as here. I've already cited WP:TITLE, which says "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" and that parenthetical disambiguation is standard "when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title", as well as WP:DAB, which says "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". There must be many thousands of articles that use a person's middle name or initial to disambiguate. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(Or sometimes people just called the younger Bush "Dubya"). Smooth alligator (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And Spencer is commonly referred to with the middle initials, as the RS examples above show. Perhaps not 501% of references to his name, but enough that it is considered "common" for naming convention purposes. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nine sources that use the middle initial "B" is not "commonly" when compared to the thousands of articles that don't use the initial. WP:INITS specificies "most common", and when it's a tiny, tiny, fraction of sources that use the B., I don't know how you can say that's "common" usage with a straight face. It's a ridiculous assertion. Rockypedia (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: The proposed title lets an uninformed reader know more about the subject from the outset of the search process. Passes BLP and NPOV per WP:BLPNAME which states, When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. - arguments to the contrary ignore weight and the common sense issue of readily making information available to readers. Additionally, the only two opposing arguments based on policy thus far cite WP:NCPDAB. Per the recommendations herein, using source material to create a title strongly supports the use of (White Supremacist) as a more specific title: The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right.  Edaham (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support strongly, if he isn't known by a middle name or initial, it is a stretch to use it as a disambiguation marker. Spencer is internationally known for his white supremacist views, so it is a perfectly acceptable parenthetical to use. TheValeyard (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This could probably be resolved by moving the article to the plain title Richard Spencer as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I just noticed that, of the nine articles on the dab page, Richard B. Spencer gets well over 90% of the pageviews (over 95% if you include the occasional spikes when he's in the news). Station1 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sock edits struck - see Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire. Doug Weller  talk 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The WP:INITS argument - against using middle initials purely to disambiguate - is fairly convincing to me, and as a parantheticaled description I see no better than 'White Supremacist' which sticks by the vast majority of reliable sources in a way that the proposed 'activist' by Wordsmith does not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It really squicks me out to take the side of a group of two or so editors here who are using policy/guideline alphabet soup to give themselves cover when they're obviously doing this because they're ideologically opposed to this guy. I mean, WP:INITS has, in one form or another, been around for over a decade. Where'd this enthusiasm to enforce it come from all of a sudden? To my mind, being honest wouldn't even be particularly controversial. Just say "per WP:IAR because this guy sucks and he'd hate it if we did this." I mean, IAR is a policy so that reasoning would have to have as much weight as people citing other rules and guidelines, wouldn't it?


 * That said, I still support per User:Edaham, who said "The proposed title lets an uninformed reader know more about the subject from the outset of the search process." This, to me, is an obviously good goal: we should let you know if you're at the right article as soon as possible, even if, because you're typing something into the search box, you're not even there yet. A parenthetical is preferable to an initial per the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:COMMONNAME. Enforcing INITS on this highly visible article had damn well better set a backlog-creating precedent, and if this passes, let's hope some of those voters up there remain fired up accordingly.  City O f  Silver  06:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I really liked this vote, wounding though it may be. It'd be fantastic if this wiki had more editors like you and less like me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, like Talk:Alan_K._Simpson? Dohn joe (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was mostly worried about the other Richard Spencers. (Richards Spencer?) I definitely believe this enthusiasm will be replicated. But I don't think it's because anybody cares about INITS. (The question was, why now? That guideline is at least 12 years old and it's been ignored and violated the whole time.) A lot of people will go on an anti-initial campaign because the site will need to point at discussions like Simpson's if Spencer and his minions throw a public fit about this.  City O f  Silver  17:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's appropriate to question the Support !voters' intention this way. Aside from the AGF angle, it's simply inaccurate to say that there is some sudden new zeal to enforce WP:INITS. The same proposal was made in January and did not reach a consensus. The January proposal came right on the heels of a talk page consensus that Spencer should be described as a white supremacist. There was no chance of the move proposal succeeding until then. So I don't see anything suspect in the slightest about the timing of this proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree with Dr. Fleischman and I'd also like to point out it's possible to both be against Spencer's beliefs and dispassionately edit Wikipedia according to policy. I count myself in those two groups, and I support this proposal due to policy reasons. For an example the other way, I've spent a significant amount of time in the last week researching and removing individuals from the Alt-right footer because, while they may racist and hateful, reliable sources did not support the assertion that they were alt-right. I just point this out because I feel most of the "oppose" votes are simply afraid of offending Spencer's followers, and they're actually the ones not giving policy reasons for an oppose vote. The support votes are all firmly grounded in logic and reason. Rockypedia (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm more concerned with the location than the timing and I probably could have made that more clear. I actually called myself out for failing to assume good faith with this edit summary (where I should have said WP:IAR, not WP:ANI). So accusing me of failing to assume good faith is both fair and right. It's just, "it's simply inaccurate to say that there is some sudden new zeal to enforce WP:INITS"? But there is a zeal, and it is new. The name of Alan Simpson's article did not comply with INITS since it was created thirteen years ago and nobody cared until August, right between the two discussions here.


 * We've got an opportunity to piss off a truly execrable person in Spencer and we wouldn't be violating policy by explaining that we're doing this because we don't like him. It would be an in-policy argument with as much weight as INITS, COMMONNAME, or any of the other stuff cited here to say, "I don't care about the other rules, I just want this asshole to have another big tantrum in public." (Hell, it would have to carry more weight than INITS because that's a mere guideline while IAR is policy.) Someone saying that would not be a bad faith actor. But someone believing that and saying, "Oh, per some obscure guideline that we've ignored from its creation" would be acting in bad faith. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck or a cynic when I say I truly wish I could assume good faith as far as you and, to be honest, most people on this website. But I can't.
 * If you want to insist on connecting the dots between Alan K. Simpson and Richard B. Spencer and accusing folks such as myself of being motivated by a dislike of the subject, I'm not going to stop you, but I do find it weakly argued, inaccurate, offensive, and counterproductive. At least you did so in a superficially civil manner, so that's something I guess. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was coy but it would have been easy to suss that you were one of the people I was talking about at the beginning of my vote here. You've been here over nine years and up until just now, when you edit conflicted me at the Simpson discussion, you apparently had no issue with his article being incorrectly named. I guess it's lucky for me that AGF isn't a policy because there's just no way I can see it. "...it's possible to both be against Spencer's beliefs and dispassionately edit Wikipedia according to policy... I never said anything different but it's possible to be against Spencer's beliefs, edit because you're against his beliefs, and edit according to policy. I believe that's happened repeatedly here, and I won't deny that it was part of the reason I support this move. If you cite IAR, you're adhering to policy.  City O f  Silver  18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I went to the Simpson discussion because you mentioned it, so I took a look. It seemed like a clear-cut case to me, so I voiced my opinion there. What am I supposed to do, spend 24/7 for the past 9 years looking for article name inconsistencies just to cover myself against accusations of "you never had a problem with that BEFORE" ?? I find that an odd take on your part. Also the whole "I assume good faith because of policy even though I'm going to basically say I don't assume good faith from you" bit seems unnecessary. Maybe keep it to "I support this move because that's what policy says" and leave it at that. Take the rest to my talk page, if you must. Rockypedia (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your support of my vote. You are correct in your assessment that I think that making information more speedily available to users is the issue that is paramount here. In order of consideration the policies related to this BLP issue should answer two questions: 1)what's our ideal title from an informative point of view? (naming conventions, wikipedia's purpose etc) 2)what policies should we consider which might prevent use of that title? (NPOV, BLP etc). An assessment of policy in that order reveals no barrier to using the most informative title possible. I don't like your (presumably tongue in cheek) suggestion that we should use the policy to "IAR", to annoy the subject of the article, or the suggestion that this is what people are discreetly attempting to do. The fact that I came up with an argument you approve of, does not preclude the possibility that I may be radically opposed to the subject, and wish to harm his reputation, nor does the fact that you disagree with other arguments preclude the possibility that the editors who made them are acting in good faith. It is up to a closing editor to judge and it's probably better to focus on ensuring that our own arguments adhere to policy rather than calling those of others into question during the course of a survey. Edaham (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is already sufficiently disambiguated from the initialization of the middle name. Whether Richard Spencer is a white supremacist or a white nationalist is keenly disputed and the difference matters. If any change should happen at all and if people still see the title as ambiguous then Richard B. Spencer (Political Activist) should be considered. Otherwise any change would be taking a side on the debate as to which ideology he holds. BrookDaCow (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not keenly disputed. There is a settled consensus, determined by many discussions including RfC, that Spencer is both a white supremacist and a white nationalist, and that we should describe him as a white supremacist since that is the more specific term. And not only that but the sources don't support the 'activist' label. This has also already been addressed in prior discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the current title is not his common name, given that most sources do not use the middle initial. Hence appeals to the examples of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush are misguided, for those are the common names of the two former Presidents. Given that this individual is well-known as a white supremacist, the parenthetical term is an appropriate one. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal, but support move to Richard Spencer (with Richard Spencer to Richard Spencer (disambiguation)). Per others above, the insertion of "white supremacist" is a solution looking for a problem, and a bad solution. The present title is accurate, natural, found in sources, and most importantly, it maintains WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if there is a direct policy governing this, but WP:POVTITLE covers the main part of the article title, not the disambiguator. Putting a perjorative term like "white supremacist" in the parentheses makes it in Wikipedia's voice. We're saying that's what he is, with no nuance at all. That IMHO differs from what we choose to say about him in the lede, and we should be much more careful about being neutral, especially when perfectly good alternatives such as the present title are available. I personally despise what this guy stands for, and I wouldn't wish to grant him any favours, but we leave our personal opinions at the door when we are editing Wikipedia. Anyway, having said all that, I would be happy to just move him to the base title, Richard Spencer - he has 95% of the page views in the past 90 days,|Richard_Spencer_(Maryland)|Richard_V._Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(Royal_Navy_officer)|Richard_Lewis_Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(journalist)|F._Richard_Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(athlete)|Richard_B._Spencer Only Richard V. Spencer gets anywhere near the hits, and I think it's fair to give this Richard the nod over the other one per common usage as well as significance and page views. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have to point out - Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, as supported by a vast array of reliable sources. It's what he's known for. It's how he's described in the first sentence of the article. There's no difference between the placement of that sentence and the parentheses in the article title - if it's good enough for the former, it's good enough for the latter, and that's not what's under discussion here. Whether you find the term "pejorative" or not (totally subjective) is irrelevant. What's being discussed is whether there should be an initial in the article title or not. I see no policy-based argument in this vote as to why the initial should be included, just a subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion about the "white supremacist" parenthetical. Rockypedia (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * White supremacist is clearly a perjorative, that's not just my opinion. And my point is not that he isn't one, simply that there is no need for us to be using it when we have a perfectly good WP:NATURALDIS alternative, which is used commonly in sources, per 's evidence above. The nomination rationale that the current title is made up by Wikipedia is untrue. Anyway, as says below, you might want to consider the option of making him PTOPIC. That would make the disambiguator question irrelevant.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Clearly a pejorative"? based on what? Is white nationalist also clearly a pejorative? What are you basing that opinion on (yes, it's your opinion). And for the tenth time, even if it is a pejorative, so what? Where's the Wikipedia policy that states we should equivocate in the parenthetical description in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings? It's still a separate issue from the initial vs. no-initial discussion, so save it for the next move discussion, if this one happens. Rockypedia (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But, if he is deemed the most Richard Spencer-iest of all the Richard Spencers in history, wouldn't it make sense to just move him there? Look at the list at Richard Spencer...an unremarkable English nobleman, a 1-term US Congressman in 1830, the current SecNav, a sax player, a high jumper, and so on... A prominent white supremacist in 21st century America trumps (unintended pun) them easily. ValarianB (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Necrothesp's note below on why he isn't the primary topic; I agree with those points. Rockypedia (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called "ignorance". "I've never heard of him" is not a valid rebuttal to what is or is not a primary topic. This is the English Wikipedia, and for better or for worse it skews Ameri-centric. This particular Richard Spencer has more renown than anyone on that list, as supported by reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Or move to Richard Spencer (political activist) if "white supremacist" is rejected. We don't use initials as a disambiguator if they're not commonly used. This is not a new thing; it's been the case for many years and, contrary to claims above, it is generally enforced when spotted. As for being a primary topic, this chap may be big news in America at the moment (I assume, although the article isn't that long), but he's not well-known elsewhere. So no, no primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to Richard Spencer (activist) instead. "Activist" is a more non-neutral term, and there are no other notable activists of the same name. ToThAc (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment for everyone worried about the "white supremacist" parenthetical (which has been debated on talk in regards to Spencer's primary descriptor in the lead and roundly endorsed by overwhelming consensus), I would direct your attention to Don Black, David Lane, James Ellison, Terry Long, etc. Rockypedia (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Identitarian movement template
I don't have time at the moment to discuss this at length, but I question whether the new Identitarian Movement template is beneficial to this article or to Wikipedia more generally. For starters, we do not have reliable sourcing that Spencer is an identitarian, just his own self-identification as an identitarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We had complaints and difficulty reaching any kind of consensus on the original alt-right template. The alt-right is more a broad coalition than anything else, and it seems weird to have Steve Bannon and Roy Moore next to the Daily Stormer. DrawingLol (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do we have to have one or the other? Why not neither? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * They've both been described as alt-right. Are you saying that we delete the page entirely? I think explaining that it is a broad coalition makes more sense. If you think that Steve Bannon or Andrew Anglin should not be included, you are free to start another section on it. DrawingLol (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm saying that we shouldn't include the Identitarian Movement template in Richard B. Spencer. I didn't say anything about deleting any pages, nor about Bannon or Anglin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the template on this page; or anything recent in the history. Has it been removed? I also concur that it's not due for inclusion here, nor Spencer for inclusion in the template; and have removed the latter accordingly. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed other references to identitarianism as a movement/type/ideology - do check. Edaham (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's being added to identity Europa, please take a look cheers. Something wrong with my mobile edits today and I self reverted. I also don't like using this template. Using it seems like Wikipedia is buying into the promotional terms used to schill buffed up racism. Identarianism for example is simply a redirect to white supremacy. additional - see this template's entry at TFD Edaham (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source? They state that Richard Spencer created the Alt-Right and "The Alt-Right is intimately connected American Identitarianism." Thus the implication being Richard Spencer is an Identitarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/10/12/american-racists-work-spread-%E2%80%98identitarian%E2%80%99-ideology Per the rules on verifability, it doens't matter if you think Idenitarism is just racism, it should be still be included in his template. Also, in the second article, they refer to Richard Spencer as identitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion was just over the usage of the Identitarian template, a big navigation-style box that was in the article for a short time. The template has been deleted, so the point is moot. ValarianB (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Views on Socialism
There are numerous reputable sources which discuss his affinity for socialism and his radical left wing views on economics. Could someone please update the article to include them? www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-alt-right-is-not-truly-right/article/2631747 https://libertarianheathen.com/2017/06/26/richard-spencer-i-am-a-socialist-and-i-hate-the-right-wing/ www.pacificpundit.com/.../hey-look-white-supremacist-richard-spencer-is-a-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.147.71.98 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ The links you provided are not reliable sources. Please provide a link to at least one source that has an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16491/4-reasons-why-richard-spencer-racist-leftist-zack-miley is a reliable source. Nickboy000 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC) https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/4/15164598/alt-right-single-payer-health-care-trump Nickboy000 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist vs white nationalist
What sources does Wikipedia have for him being a white supremacist. Is Wikipedia accepting the notion that nationalism is racism? Would Malcom X be a Black Supremacist for being a Black Separatist/Nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (a) Redacting an ill-judged example that's many would consider anti-Semitic. (b) The sources are listed throughout the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you see how when you float your mouse over the little "[1]" following "white supremacist" in the first sentence, a whole bunch of sources come up? There's your answer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that did that lol. How was that anti Semitic? Just from a question of academia does nationalism = supremacy? You didn't answer that question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC) The AP, National Public Radio, Fox News, The New York Times, MSNBC, and The Washington Post refer to Richard Spencer as a white nationalist... Would those be considered reliable sources? It seems that Wikipedia editors are resisting the mainstream narrative because they dislike him. ignore the other talk thing I posted please. I dind't think this one went through — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We've already been over this countless times. The "mainstream narrative" is that he is a white supremacist, which closely overlaps with being a white nationalist. He is both things. Despite many racists' claims that there is some significant difference between the two, this overlap is extremely common. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Nick, these discussions have been had many times. Check the archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the "mainstream consensus" is that he is a white nationalist per the sources I listed. According to Webster's dictionary the definitions of white nationalist and white supremacist are distinctly different. So by way of Wikipedia rules on verifiability, Richard Spencer's page should read that he is a white nationalist. Secondly, you people aren't addressing my question. To be logically consistent, why doesn't Malcom X's wiki page say he is a Black Supremacist? If nationalism = supremacy.... I did check the archives,not one addressed the specific points I'm raising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are free to go to Talk:Malcolm X and suggest that he be called a black supremacist. And regarding white nationalist vs white supremacist - oh yes we most definitely have discussed that issue. You haven't looked hard enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm just having a hard time understanding this. Per Wikipedia's verifiability rules, Richard Spencer's page should read that he is a white nationalist. It's irrelevant whether you think he is a white supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are in a clear minority then. Please respect the consensus. It has been rehashed over and over and over again. If you don't understand the basis for it, then, as I said, you can go back through the discussion archives and read all about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I am in the majority as shown by the facts that so many inquiries have been made about this and the rules on verifiability being on this side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken on both counts. Consensus isn't determined by strict majority vote, and every time we have had a serious discussion about this topic the consensus has always ended up in favor of calling Spencer a white supremacist. It is only getting stronger as more and more reliable sources are describing him that way. It makes little difference that stragglers come in from time to time making arguments that are often contrary to our core policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)'

So The Associated Press, National Public Radio, Fox News, The New York Times, MSNBC, and The Washington Post aren't reliable? They all in their coverage of Richard Spencer use the term of White Nationalist. Consensus among who? Is your claim that White Nationalism = White Supremacy or just that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs)


 * The terms are not mutually exclusive. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes ("~") at the end. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read and try to understand what your fellow editors have already explained. Personally I'm done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so if most sources elect to call him a White Nationalist,(Southern Poverty Law Center said that the movement he coined was identitarian in nature) why does your opinion that he's a white supremacist trump that? Nickboy000 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman won't actually answer my question on verifiability. Nickboy000 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This page is very interesting, is the Southern Poverty Law Center reliable? https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0 Nickboy000 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the SPLC is considered a reliable source. The Wikipedia does not echo their opinion as fact, however, it phrases such inclusions like "According to the SPLC, so-and-so is a such-and-such." ValarianB (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For more on that, ask the same question at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center Rockypedia (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the rules on verifability Wikipedia doesn't post original research. So if an overwhelming amount of reliable sources regard Richard Spencer as a White Nationalist why doesn't Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The rule against "no original research" applies to you, that is, editors. Not sources. How do you think news is gathered by the media? They...research their stories. I really cannot think of anything else to say on this particular topic, you have posed queries, those queries have been answered. Going on roundabout is becoming unproductive. ValarianB (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. You don't understand what I mean. The overwhelming amount of reliable sources refer to him as a white nationalist. So wikipedia editors having the article read that he is a white supremacist is their own research because it's based on their preconceived notions. Nickboy000 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For instance, on one of the talk posts, someone posted a change that was rejected and on the topic of white supremacist vs white nationalist, an editor said distinction not a difference to give some veneer of respect. That's not based on anything, that's just conjecture. I've already posted an overwhelming amount of sources which you guys won't address. Nickboy000 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to address. None of these sources in any way indicate that he's only a white nationalist, and never a white supremacist. Regardless of how significant the difference is, the two are not mutually exclusive. He's both, but it's simpler to just say "supremacist", since that uses fewer words and already includes "nationalist". Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that logic. Let's go back to Malcolm X, black nationalist/separatist. If you have a source that serves as proof for that, but doesn't specifically deny the fact he's Black Supremacist, you can't just assume he's a black supremacist because of that or the fact that black supremacists are a subsection of black nationalists. If you do so, you are misleading the readers. So, if you have a few reliable sources that regard Richard Spencer as a White Supremacist, and an overwhelming amount of reliable sources that regard him as a White Nationalistic, you should use the overwhelming amountt of sources. Nickboy000 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't call Spencer a white supremacist because we have a source that "serves as proof" that he's a white "nationalist/separatist." We call him a white supremacist because we have a source that calls him a white supremacist. Many, actually.
 * No offense but this really, truly has all been hashed out over and over and over again--yes, the exact same arguments. Repeated failure to listen and respect the consensus can become disruptive and lead to a loss of editing privileges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

But if there are a lot of more sources that refutes that? This page should read that he is definitely white nationalist but some claim he is a white supemacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have not presented a single source that "refutes" this. Time to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that on the whole the news media seem to be moving away from "white nationalist" and toward "white supremacist." If you run comparative Google News sources without a date restriction, "white nationalist" comes up about twice as often as "white supremacist." But if you restrict to since October 1, 2017 (I picked that date arbitrarily), the ratio is actually the opposite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is talking past each other. It is true that "nationalism" does not equal "supremacism." India, the largest democracy in the world, is run by a nationalist government. The obvious distinction is that "nationalism" and "white nationalism" are not separated by a superficial term, but rather they mean completely different things. "White nationalists" are associated with racist ideologies, "nationalists" are not. It is incomplete to view "white" and "nationalist" as separate, innocent, descriptors when it can only be understood as the full construct. "White nationalist" has a distinct and separate meaning from "white" and "nationalist." --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/11/07/papa-johns-asks-white-nationalists-not-to-buy-their-pizza-amid-neo-nazi-endorsement.html Fox news is using the term white nationalist. Dr, I'm not sure if you meant in terms of Richard Spencer or not. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/us/politics/richard-spencer-washington-conference.html (after October 1st) nytimes opting to use the term White Nationalist to describe Richard Spencer has an implied rejection of the term White Supremacist because like you said, white supremacists are white nationalists so if he was a White Supremacist it'd be easier and quicker to just use it. Dheyward you're interpretation of white nationalism is wrong. The question is, is Ethno Nationalism the same as supremacy. I will ask you the same question I asked Dr.F, is Malcom X a racist and a Black supremacist for being a black separatist/nationalist, is Theodor Herzl a Jewish Supremacist for being a Zionist? If not then you can't say Richard Spencer is a White Supremacist because the talking points he uses are the same as other ethno nationalists. For instance, the whole are ethnicity is oppressed and can't assimilate or be assimilated too thing. FYI I'm not saying that Wite are going through the same or remotly close thing black and Jews went through. I'm just comparing beliefs and language. Nickboy000 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "White Nationalsm" is plug-abd-play version of ethno nationalist is incorrect. White Nationalist has meaning beyond just white people who are nationalist.  The same is true for Hindu Nationists.  The term Hindu by itself may infer religion, but the term "Hindu Nationalist" does not.  There are many political joinders where the meaning is more than the sum of its parts.  White Natioalist is one of them and it stands alone in the interpretation.  How "Black Nationalism" or "Jewish Nationalism" is interprete has little bearing on how "White Nationalism" is interpreted.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, well said; thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said white nationalism is white people being nationalistic. It the belief that white culture is distinct and that in order to preserve it a white nation is required. How we interpret Jewish Nationalism and Black Nationalism does matter because if you think the same can be said for black people and Jewish people without being racist, but you think White Nationalism is racist, you're not being logically consistent. Nickboy000 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Views on socialistic policies
In order to fully understand Richard Spencer, isn't important to include the fact that he supports single prayer health care and a universal basic income — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Source please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "socialistic" means. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A better word would be Progressive. Can a source be a a link to an interview or podcast of him expressing those views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, but a secondary source (such as a news story) is preferable, and in general the consensus has been against including Spencer's views that have not been covered by reliable secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think such a source is likely to be sufficient. We already know he has plenty of reddit-friendly opinions. Just because it's factual, that doesn't mean that it must be included in the article. His opinions (or "the fact" that he has opinions) are not automatically relevant unless contextualized by reliable, independent sources. This is especially true for issues like this, where he is not a recognized expert in any way. Perhaps he also has opinions on boxers vs. briefs or chunky vs. smooth, but so what? If a white supremacist farts in an underground bunker, does it make a sound? Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell what do you mean by reddit friendly views? Nothing has to be included in the article. But if you're on this wiki page it's more than likely that you are interested in learning more about him. It's very strange that there's nothing about his economics is included. Dr.F Wouldn't Primary Sources be the most reliable on issues like this. Even though, I think white nationalist is more appropriate, I understand that he is inclined to use more friendly adjectives like that and identitarian rather than White Supremacist so referring to secondary sources is preferable, but he has no reason to lie or exaggerate his views on economics. He actually has reasons to lie in the other way because he works for right wing groups. I don't know what he gains in right wing circles by coming out in favor of Gay Marriage, a Universal Basic Income, or a Single Payer Healthcare system. Nickboy000 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cite some reliable secondary sources, then propose the content. Outside of basic biographical facts, something that the subject wrote himself is pretty much unusable for our purposes.- MrX 21:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone else having deja vu? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For months and months. Deju vu is the new normal. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally this reminds me of something that went on and on at Talk:Breitbart News. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * He gains by promoting his personal views, and if his personal views are popular with some non-racists, that helps him to normalize his racism. Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping him share his views. Everyone has a million opinions, good and bad, and it's not Wikipedia's job to catalog them all. Spencer is not an economist. He is not recognized by any reliable authority as an expert on economics. He is, sincerely or not, sharing his support for a set of ideas that are popular among some on the left, and have also become something of a meme among otherwise right-wing Silicon Valley types. This isn't relevant unless reliable sources explain its relevance for us. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * North Korea calls itself a "democratic republic", but simply calling yourself something doesn't always make it so. Bring to the table actual, usable sources, then we can discuss. TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He isn't a foreign ppolicy or genetics expert either. So how can you share his beliefs on the Iraq war or Homosexuality. democratic republic is an adjective.Saying I believe in x y or z is not. If you're not allowed to use what he says how are you supposed to write on anything he believes. Also, Richard Spencer isn't mainstream person, so it's hard to find anything on him except his more popular white nationalist beliefs. https://altright.com/2017/03/23/why-trump-must-champion-universal-healthcare/ This is an editorial he wrote. If he says that he believes in those things and hasn't done anything contradicting those beliefs, you can just make a baseless assumption that he doesn't believe it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Spencer's own editorials are irrelevant. As for the Iraq war and LGBT rights, these are two of the more prevalent issues in American politics over the past few decades. Spencer has entered into the political discourse, a recognized white supremacist of some renown, thus his opinions on the issues can be deemed noteworthy. TheValeyard (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources comment on his views on race, immigration, and similar, so we explain them as his views. If you know of a reliable source which comments on his views of healthcare, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite entering politics as a white nationalist I managed to find one on beliefs on healthcare https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/4/15164598/alt-right-single-payer-health-care-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Alt-rightists and other Trump-loyal conservatives — Richard Spencer, VDARE writer and ex–National Review staffer John Derbyshire, Newsmax CEO and Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, and onetime Donald Trump Jr. speechwriter and Scholars & Writers for Trump head F.H. Buckley — all endorsed various models of single-payer in recent months and years." vox Nickboy000 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of thing we're asking for, yes. The quote you're highlighting is not great, since it's a passing mention, but later on it goes into some depth. This source also very explicitly contextualizes this as part of Spencer's obsession with race. That is the only reason anyone is even talking about his opinions, and that would have to be conveyed in this article, if it's going to be included. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. But the quote they attribute to Spencer is talking about populism and nationalistic perspective. So if we did make an edit on  it, it should assert beliefs come from a combination of populism and nationalism.Nickboy000 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC) From, the offhand quote it seems that Spencer was just making an off hand dig toward Paul Ryan. Nickboy000 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, Spencer isn't reliable, so we have to judge the context established by other, reliable, sources. Don't just read the first quote that comes up, read the whole article, or at least multiple paragraphs. From that, it's very clear that this is only being mentioned because of race. According to this Vox article, Spencer is only advocating single-payer because he believes it will both benefit and appeal to white people. The Vox article is reliable in a way that Spencer alone is not. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't and what do you think of the edit? What I have is just a start. It can be improved upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been told by an administrator on your talk page that your edits here are disruptive. Please do not continue to pursue this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
From race and ethnicity I removed "Prior to the UK vote to leave the EU, Spencer expressed support for the multi-national bloc "as a potential racial empire" and an alternative to "American hegemony", stating that he has "always been highly skeptical of so-called 'Euro-Skeptics.'" because radix journal isn't a reliable source and that link didn't work properly.Nickboy000 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I also removed "In one interview in which he was asked if he would condemn the KKK and Adolf Hitler, he refused, saying "I’m not going to play this game," while stating that Hitler had "done things that I think are despicable," without elaborating on which things he was referring to." because Dr.F has previously said that the Daily Wire is not a reliable source. Which that piece of info did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the sourced material you deleted. Please do not remove sourced material without a consensus on the talk page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use the Daily Wire as a reliable source? Dr.F dismissed someone's idea because it used the Daily Wire as a source?Nickboy000 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and your second question mark appears to follow a statement, not a question. Rockypedia (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes
Why were my changes removed? I provided reliable sources Nickboy000 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , that source is not reliable. It does not have a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. The specific article is an opinion piece, not reporting. It is basically an online tabloid source, and not acceptable for a BLP. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But it's used as a source in the race and ethnicity section. Nickboy000 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) It also has a pretty good rating from snopes.... Nickboy000 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I have an article from the Washingtonexaminer that I'd like to use http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-alt-right-is-not-truly-right/article/2631747 They have a rating of half true from Politifact.Nickboy000 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Can I rewrite the section and the Daily Wire and the Washington Examiner as sources?Nickboy000 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a news article from the Washington Examiner, . It is explicitly labelled as an opinion column. Therefore, it is not a reliable source for anything other than that non-notable person's personal opinions, which do not belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple things. I'm using it as a source for screenshoted tweets from Richard Spencer. also according to Wikipedia, editorials can be used but are not preferable.Nickboy000 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Editorials and opinion columns can be used only as sources for the author's opinions, and never for statements of fact or statements in Wikipedia's voice. There is no reason to include that person's opinions in this article.


 * Raw tweets are not encyclopedic. Only tweets which have been discussed by independent reliable sources belong in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources when you avoid original research, I did, primary sources are allowed to be used for specific facts. Nickboy000 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, before removing something there should be consensusNickboy000 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for your additions. Do not restore this contested material without gaining consensus here on the talk page, . Using opinion pieces like you are doing is contrary to policy. Opinion pieces can never be used for statements of fact. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not using it as fact. What I am doing is using the primary source for specific pieces of information, then I'm using the secondary source to illustrate the point of Richard Spencer having a falling out classic right wing institutions and beliefs. So when I cite them and the daily wire as a source, I'm using them and the daily wire to make points about right wing media and personnel. From what I have read, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that.Nickboy000 (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hogwash, . You do not seem to understand what truly reliable sources are for use in biographies of living people. This is a matter of policy. You simply cannot use opinion pieces in this way. If you continue to try, it is very likely that you will be blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You can say that but it doesn't make you any less wrong....Nickboy000 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked why your changes were reverted and you received your answer. Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Healthcare
Can I add his views on Healthcare to his page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if the information is presented in a neutral manner, and everything presented is supported by citations from reliable sources. Please click on that link to learn what a reliable source is. Anything not meeting these criteria will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How do I source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I made an edit using a reliable source.Nickboy000 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for the proposed move. Although there is a numerical majority in favor of moving the page, it is underwhelming. A stronger consensus should be formed before dislocating a longstanding disambiguation page in favor of a proposed primary topic. However, even some opposed to usurping the disambiguation page appear favorable to a title with a parenthetical disambiguator over an unused middle initial, so it seems likely that a straight proposal to move the page to Richard Spencer (activist) would succeed. bd2412 T 18:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

– Per WP:INITS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as suggested by in the discussion above. The 5-year Google Trends timeline strongly suggests that an overwhelming number of readers are looking for information about this Richard Spencer, who is identified by the vast majority of reliable sources without his middle initial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer
 * Richard Spencer → Richard Spencer (disambiguation)
 * Clarification: This proposal necessarily involves moving the disambiguation page currently at Richard Spencer to Richard Spencer (disambiguation), in order to make way for the move of this page. The precise wording of the hatnote on this page can be resolved in a subsequent discussion if necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have updated the move request to reflect the aforementioned point. Steel1943  (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Per my vote in the previous move discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support also per my vote in the last discussion. With 95% of the views,|Richard_Spencer_(Maryland)|Richard_V._Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(Royal_Navy_officer)|Richard_Lewis_Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(journalist)|F._Richard_Spencer|Richard_Spencer_(athlete)|Richard_B._Spencer and the only other serious contender being the Secretary of the Navy (a cabinet position but not a major one), I think it's fair to say this is the primary topic by common usage, and the one readers are most likely to be seeking. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good idea, as it addresses the obscure middle initial argument. This Richard Spencer is far and away the primary topic, after reviewing the list that is currently at Richard Spencer. TheValeyard (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Drama-free solution and Fleischmann makes an excellent point.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, along with the standard disambig notice pointing to the Navy Secretary and to the other uses. Seems almost obvious, in retrospect. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Apart from the Royalist MP, Richard Spencer (died 1661), there is the English parliamentarian and envoy Richard Spencer (1553-1624), both members of the same preeminent Spencer family as Winston Spencer Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales. (On wikipedia he is listed as the fourth son of Sir John Spencer.) Both Spencers played a role in Tudor and Stuart history. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Richard V. Spencer is clearly less-known, but should be in the hat-note due to his current position. power~enwiki ( π , ν ) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support With the earlier proposal having unfortunately failed this seems to be the second-best option. This Richard Spencer is clearly the primary topic, taking into account pageviews and usage in reliable sources. The Royalist MP does not seem to be of significant historical significance on the basis of his article. The current disambiguation makes it confusing for readers who would not necessarily know his middle initial. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. 95% of the page views is a clear indication that this is the primary topic and the one readers are looking for. Given that he's much more widely known as "Richard Spencer" than "Richard B. Spencer", the move makes sense. Richard Spencer (white supremacist) or Richard Spencer (white nationalist) would also be good titles.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.- MrX 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as a better alternative to a less-than-ideal parenthetical. ValarianB (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sources commonly use his middle initial, so there's no need for this primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Several of the other Richard Spencers (e.g., the sea captain, the Royalist MP and the current Navy Secretary) have more long-term notability.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b; background:#ef0000; padding:2px; color:#efe6e6; text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family:Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  03:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support While I would prefer leaving the page where it is, there seems to be some consensus to move it elsewhere. This seems like the best of all the available options for a move. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even though giving everyone a parenthetical would solve both the initial problem that INITS corrects and serve as cause to get rid of plenty of the reams of mostly useless disambiguation pages. Anyone looking for the Secretary of the Navy or the vicar or the guys in the Royal Family isn't going to get the sort of help that would come with "Richard Spencer (white supremacist)" and "Richard Spencer (vicar)" and so on but per User:Station1, hardly anybody is going to those articles anyway.  City O f  Silver  21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The New York Times and other publications commonly use his middle initial. Example 1 ("WASHINGTON — An anti-immigrant group led by the white nationalist Richard B. Spencer was told..."); Example 2 ("GAINESVILLE, Fla. — The president of the University of Florida said white supremacist Richard B. Spencer wants the speech he will deliver Thursday to spark violence..."). Neutralitytalk 22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are actually mistaken here. Google News currently shows 1,670 NY Times stories for "Richard Spencer" and only 28 NY Times stories for "Richard B. Spencer". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll change my vote to neutral on this basis. Neutralitytalk 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on WP:RECENTISM. 18 months ago, barely anyone outside of Stormfront knew he existed. His recent new-found fame is almost entirely a function of the 2016 US presidential election. That, in my opinion, does not qualify him to be the primary topic, regardless of how many thousands of recent articles about him have been written. They're all from 2015 onward, and he could easily be receiving less coverage than the other living Richard Spencer on the disambiguation page in 4 years. We just don't know. Rockypedia (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that happens, the issue can be revisited in four years, since consensus CAN change. --Calton | Talk 03:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM exists, at least in part, so that we don't have to constantly revisit every contentious topic. Rockypedia (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that you're misapplying WP:RECENTISM, with a helping of WP:CRYSTAL ("...he could easily be receiving less coverage") to boot. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per my comment in the previous RM. WP:RECENTISM. Even then, not well-known outside America. Not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment above 5-year Google Trends timeline strongly suggests that an overwhelming number of readers are looking for information about this Richard Spencer, who is identified by the vast majority of reliable sources without his middle initial seems to indicate that this is, in fact, the primary topic, whether or not he is "widely known" outside of the U.S. --Calton | Talk 03:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, that link actually bolsters the argument that WP:RECENTISM applies here and and as such, he's not the primary topic. Note that the first spike in searches was 20 Nov 2016, less than a year ago. We're talking about Richard Spencers on the disambig page that go back hundreds of years, and you want to assign a primary topic in a worldwide encyclopedia based on the fleeting fame of one American? How does that make any sense? Rockypedia (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you actually READ WP:RECENTISM? It talks about "news spikes" and and how things could be forgotten in a month's time: over two years is NOT "recentism" by any reasonable reading of that essay. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're cherry-picking. The same supplement also talks about the "ten-year" test, but you conveniently didn't see that, I guess. The salient point remains the same: we're talking about a guy that became famous over the last year (not two!), and other Richard Spencers have been around for hundreds. Rockypedia (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rockypedia, I think you're overlooking a key aspect of the Google Trends graph. Don't just look at how it spikes when Richard B. Spencer started making the news last fall. Look at how minuscule and flat the interest in other Richard Spencers was before then--hovering in the 0%-1% range. (You can download the csv file to get the numbers.) Do you really think that the interest in Richard B. Spencer will be that low in 10 years time, even if he were to magically disappear tomorrow? That seems extremely unlikely. The guy is going to be in history books on modern American history as probably the most prominent figure in the alt-right phenomenon, especially after Charlottesville. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually think there's a great chance that he'll be that low in 10 years' time, yes. But what you and I predict on that point is just a prediction; I don't think it's a good idea to call someone a primary topic after just a year in the limelight, regardless of what we see in our respective WP:CRYSTAL balls. Rockypedia (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * also talks about the "ten-year" test NOW who's conveniently cherrypicking? The "ten-year test" has fuck-all to do with whether ten years have past, and your projection is -- ONCE AGAIN -- WP:CRYSTAL opinion. The actual point of RECENTISM regarding notability is about flash-in-the-pan stories -- remember the "month's time" thing, or did YOU conveniently forget that? -- and a constant one year or two years is not that by any stretch of the imagination. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your caps-lock key appears to be malfunctioning. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). This is clearly a bio which fails the first criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is WP:RECENT. This particular individual is not more notable than all Richard Spencers in history combined. A cursory search in Google Books barely shows him peeking out among many others. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a multitude of reasons:
 * WP:RECENTISM, since this Richard Spencer has only been notable for very little time compared to other Richard Spencers of the past;
 * WP:WORLDWIDE - due to the notable British Richard Spencer (MP) and Richard Spencer (Royal Navy officer);
 * And ethics in general. Personally I am against giving this guy more fame than he's already getting.
 * As an alternative, I suggest moving his page to Richard Spencer (activist). (WP:NPOV is stopping me from suggesting Richard Spencer (Nazi).) Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...has only been notable for very little time compared to other Richard Spencers of the past Is there a relative-time-scale test that I missed? Did you have a percentage we could work with here?
 * I am against giving this guy more fame than he's already getting You're going to have to explain how changing the article name is going to do that, or why it's Wikipedia's role in the first place (even assuming Wikipedia had that power). --Calton | Talk 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash;Michipedian (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 November 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 00:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer → Richard Spencer (activist) – Three key reasons below:


 * WP:COMMONNAME: Most news coverage of Spencer omits the middle initial. Examples: The Atlantic, CNN , and Associated Press


 * WP:SELFIDENTITY: Spencer's own Hatreon page uses "Richard Spencer" (archive.is link follows)


 * WP:WORLDWIDE/WP:RECENTISM: When looking at the Richard Spencer disambiguation page against worldwide history, there is no primarily notable Richard Spencer.

And a relevant comment after the closing of the last, unsuccessful move attempt to make this page the primary Richard Spencer topic from : "... even some opposed to usurping the disambiguation page appear favorable to a title with a parenthetical disambiguator over an unused middle initial, so it seems likely that a straight proposal to move the page to Richard Spencer (activist) would succeed." Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. This is a non-starter. The issue of whether whether Spencer can be neutrally described as an activist has already been extensively discussed and rejected. Take for instance this CNN article: "Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to Richard Spencer a white rights activist. We have updated the story to more accurately refer to him as a white supremacist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Plain Richard Spencer or bust, that is the common name that is perfectly acceptable thus negating any need for parenthesis descriptors. The arguments that the other Spencers are even remotely on par with this one were laughably daft. This Spencer is the notable and primary one. TheValeyard (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That has already been rejected, we are now on second option, finding a workable (disambiguator). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's too bad. If we can't just use his plain name and bump the historical nobodies off the list, then we'll stick with the middle initial. TheValeyard (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perspective please, see WP:RECENT. For an encyclopedia time will prove that it is the white supremacist who is the "historical nobody". After his five minutes of notoriety he'll be forgotten in five years. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose No way in hell, this is the worst of the moves proposed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good proposal and logical outcome of above RM from a Wikipedia WP:TITLE perspective. Editor Dr Fleischman can I say you seem to have unrealistically high expectations of disambiguators on Wikipedia. The purpose is only WP:DISAMBIGUATION and from neutral sources cannot see any problem with the description (activist). Richard Spencer (alt-right writer) per category on footer would also be okay. Add note that Richard Spencer (white supremacist) would be a personal preference, but would have to be well sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a neutral and straight-forward resolution to the naming issue. Maybe a little horn-tooting, but I believe I was the first to bring up the (activist) possibility. :) ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral? Are you kidding me? This is whitewashing at its worst. This is the title that Spencer himself and his white supremacist followers would prefer. No, Spencer is notable for the one thing and one thing only - that's being a white supremacist. Not being an "activist", which presents a false equivalence and runs contrary to the first line of the lead besides. I'd support Richard Spencer (white supremacist) over this. That's 100% honest, at least. Rockypedia (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- he is not known for being an activist, a statement rooted in a consideration of the reliable sources used to support the article text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The use of an anodyne euphemism to describe the most notorious American white supremacist of the 21st century cannot be allowed to happen, nor is it compliant with our basic content policies. We are required to reflect what mainstream reliable sources say about someone, and mainstream reliable sources describe him primarily as a white supremacist, because that is what he is notable for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia (disambiguators) are quite often anodyne. Dealing with individuals in the Baked Alaska (alt-right writer) category can be problematic. That particular individual should really be under (troll) but is now sitting ridiculously at (entertainer) while editors chew over the same sort of disambiguation problem as here. I personally would have originally supported (white supremacist) for Richard Spencer, but that move has just failed, we are now onto the second discussion and sources for "activist" do exist, dislike it or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then the article shouldn't be moved. No descriptor at all is preferable to an entirely anodyne one which essentially whitewashes his extremist racist beliefs. It would be like having an article on Adolf Hitler (politician). While essentially true, it is a lie by omission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although subject has been frequently referenced without the "B.", middle initials are usually omitted in mentions of individuals who use them, other than for specialized exceptions, such as stage names. In this case, "Richard B. Spencer" is subject's pen name. Similar consensus is also difficult to obtain for concurrent RM Jim L. Mora → Jim Mora (American football, born 1961) and Jim E. Mora → Jim Mora (American football, born 1935). &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "activist" is not the best description if we need disambiguation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- "activist" is not supported by the preponderance of sources and per CNN quote provided by, which is quite compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - So many problems with this, some of which have already been raised. Is he even in Category:Activists? "Activist" is almost meaningless other than as a peacock term. It says too little about who he is or why he is notable, but it sounds vaguely impressive. Half the other people listed at Richard Spencer could be plausibly be described as engaging in activism, so who is saying this is a defining trait, and why? Don't kid yourself into thinking that softening the language is the appropriate or mature response. It isn't. We are not obligated to meet Spencer half-way to help him with his PR problems. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Activist" is probably one of the biggest euphemisms I've ever seen for his job description. I would support (white supremacist) as a far more accurate descriptor which has also been mentioned above.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal per above opposes. Activist seems to suffer from the same neutrality concerns as white supremacist. Also oppose "(white supremacist)" per my earlier !vote in the previous discussion. I supported the primary topic suggestion, but that didn't go through so that's where we're at. Other than that, we seem to be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Richard B. Spencer is a neutral, natural title, it's used in sources, even if it's not actually the most common name, and it precisely identifies the target. Let's move on. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the usual tentative, kid gloves, pussyfooting, gazing at the navels of various irrelevant applications of policies and arriving at a vague disambiguation method, which in the search bar or via DAB page, will make those aware of the subject's existence as well as those not aware, more not less confused about the article to which they are being directed. At some point in this survey we have to address the fact that we are an encyclopedia and this subject is a white supremacist. What we should be asking is: is there a relevant reason not to disambiguate him as (White Supremacist) in order to make the encyclopedia article about him better and more informative. To date, reliable sources are literally strewn with references supporting this word for disambiguation. This (and the shower of surveys like it in recent months) are DUE meets FALSEBALLANCE meets NEUTRALITY gone wrong, and have led to nothing but ambiguity and loopholes whereby IP users and partisan editorship can march along and waste countless project hours by rehashing and re-airing NPOV and LIBEL issues in the face of hoards of support for a clear term for this subjects activities and positions. Edaham (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion (activist)
Question: I'm opposed to this guy's belief system as much as any sane (i.e. not an alt-right adherent) person is, but I'm not sure I get the "he's not an activist" opposition. Isn't being a leading voice everywhere he shows up, from CPAC to Charlottesville, for his white supremacy an inherently "activist" position? ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then go back through the archived discussions, which have squarely addressed your question. The simple answer is that the sources do not call him an activist. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's about the level of hackneyed dodging I expected . "Activist" is a simple term to describe an advocate of a cause, it is not a proper title that should need a source. I find more and more around here that the "citation needed" made famous in xkcd is used alternatively as club or shield as needed by the attacker or deflector, respectively, rather than as a genuine inquiry for more information to be provided. ValarianB (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job personalizing the dispute and trying to turn it into something it's not. It's actually possible to disagree with a position without disparaging it and the people who hold it, you know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been personalized from the get-go by those pushing for a parenthetical "white supremacist", or worse, when there are perfectly WP:NPOV-acceptable terms to choose from. ValarianB (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "White supremacist" is the NPOV term to describe Spencer. It's thoroughly documented in reliable sources. Please stop suggesting that describing someone as reliable sources do is in some way a violation of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness I don't think ValarianB is saying it's a violation of policy. I think they're saying that it's really, really bad, so bad that anyone who prefers this parenthetical (despite it being extremely well sourced) must be a POV-pushing, personalizing, hackneyed dodger. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. I see people cite WP:OTHERSTUFF in times like this, but I feel this may be a valid opportunity to raise a point about another article. Osama bin Laden doesn't lead with "Osama bin Laden is a terrorist...", why is that? It takes until the end of the 2nd lead paragraph to even mention the word terror, and that is in he context of being listed by the FBI as such, "X is a Y" never comes in to play. I don't know why we're so hellbent on making "white supremacist" as loud and as prominent as possible in this article. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple, really: because that's what Spencer is known for. But instead of acknowledging that editors you disagree with are trying to uphold their understanding of community standards, just as you are, you dismiss the lot as POV-pushing, personalizing, hackneyed dodgers. That's contrary to a host of other community standards, as well as being just plain not cool. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of fostering cooperation I am willing to strike the "hackneyed" line above. So to the point, bin Laden is primarily known for being a terrorist, yet that's not how his article is written, was the point. You know Spencer is a white supremacist, I know he's white supremacist, that's not the issue. I'm just seeing a bit of a problem with moving an article title to Richard Spencer (white supremacist)), as the community standards of NPOV don't seem to support that sort of thing. I'm not yet as experienced as you all in finding the arcane WP:... policy and guide pages, but in reading some Category discussions awhile ago I came across WP:OPINIONCAT. I'm wondering why it's not OK to categorise by opinion but it is OK to title by opinion. Regardless, if this ends up being what the article is moved to, I'm not going to fight over it or edit-war or anything like that of course, but I think it's something to talk about. I'd feel the same if there was a party on the far left that needed to have a title disambiguated, and the suggestion was John Doe (antifa). ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ValarianB, please explain, with some logic and research (not personal opinion), why you think "white supremacist" is POV. Rockypedia (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rocky, those who pose such an absurd question pretty much invalidate themselves from this discussion, so i really see little value in continuing a tangent with you. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you got nothin'. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As User:In ictu oculi notes above, the purpose of a parenthetical disambiguator is to disambiguate the title from other Richard Spencers, not to show support or opposition for the subject's beliefs. "Activist" does a reasonably good job at that but could be a bit misleading as activists tend to have more traditional left-wing causes.  "White supremacist" is probably even clearer and is supported by sources but is rejected by Spencer himself, bringing up WP:BLP issues.  "White nationalist" is another option but is less common in sources.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b; background:#ef0000; padding:2px; color:#efe6e6; text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family:Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP does not prohibit labeling spades as spades when that can be supported by reliable sources. I am as much of a BLP stickler as anyone, but what it requires is that we treat subjects sensitively (particularly those unwillingly thrust into a spotlight) and use only high-quality reliable sources when making sensitive or derogatory statements. There are a bazillion reliable sources in this case, and as Spencer is literally and willingly the most notable and notorious American white supremacist of the 21st century, I simply can't see any BLP issues here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , you have now said repeatedly that "activist" is reliably sourced, but I have yet to find any such sources. Please help. I will also note that the reason I mentioned the CNN source so prominently in my !vote is because it says that Spencer shouldn't be described as an activist. Even if we had a few sources describing him as an activist, they'd still be in a tiny minority, and we'd still have this conflicting source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said I would prefer (white supremacist) according to the Guardian, etc., but leading alt-right activist Richard Spencer." does exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I believe you misread consensus when you closed the other move discussion to simply Richard Spencer - You stated that a move proposal to a parenthesised 'activist' was likely to succeed, but this is worse than the other two other failed move proposals and has seen less support so far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think bd2412 misread anything or did anything wrong. If you look at the move request in a vacuum (without looking at prior discussions) you'd have no idea how much opposition there was to the "activist" label. And I don't think bd2412 had any obligation to go back through those prior discussions. But their closing comment did cause me to laugh out loud. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I would predict that it's evident now that another 3rd RM is coming in a weeks time to attempt Richard Spencer (white supremacist). Editors who are likely to support that might want to prepare their sources so that that one will actually fly, because after having tried the above RM1 and RM2 (activist), any 4th RM is likely to be placed under moratorium for 6 months till May 2018. Just speaking from a bit of observation about how RM works... In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We've actually already tried (White Supremacist)- it was the first suggestions. The closer, of course, said that a move to just Richard Spencer would surely work. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive_1. A shame that wasn't done using a RM template to attract wider input. Would (white supremacist) now get more support than (activist)? Yes no answer from someone please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It probably has more support than the current proposal, judging by the !votes in each of the two discussions. That doesn't mean it has enough support for consensus though. The above discussion was closed as "no consensus", and it was advertised as a proper RM - although it started out as an ordinary discussion, the RM templates were added two days in, and it then saw a full listing on the RM page. The current title, which is the long-term stable one, seems to do the job well enough - it's certainly used in plenty of sources, satisfies WP:NATURALDIS, and also avoids any arguments about what the disambiguator actually should be. Personally I think it's time to stop trying to rename this, accept the current name, and just move on. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we have an RfC with multiple choices? Perhaps even rank 1st, 2nd, etc...preferences? It would be a bit more complicated for the closers to tabulate consensus rather than a strict support/oppose, but it may be fairer in the long run. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to ValarianB's suggestion here, but honestly I'm pessimistic it will work, so I'm not interested in participating beyond casting my !vote. The RfC would have to be drafted very carefully to capture any consensus that might emerge, otherwise it'd be just a waste of time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"white supremacist" This is just a propaganda term. He should be called identitarian, or nationalist, or maybe separatist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.20.245 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * White supremacists don't get to be described by their self-coined neologisms, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I will chime in now and say go for previous precedent in Don Black (white supremacist) and James Ellison (white supremacist). From these article titles and the discussion here, I would support moving the page to Richard Spencer (white supremacist). Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biased article?
Ctrl+F Southern Poverty Law Center: 8 results

This is like writing an article about Hilary Clinton and quoting Breitbart as your main source. Is this supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia?

2607:FEA8:1D9F:F8EA:FDB1:9C26:4001:BDAD (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The analogy might be apt, except that the SPLC is a reliable source -- determined to be so multiple times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -- and Breitbart isn't - quite far from it, in fact. And yes, we are a neutral encyclopedia -- we neutrally report what reliable sources say, and we do not report what biased or unreliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two "L"s in "Hillary", BTW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that’s what I said, but I was drunk editing and less civil. I used the word turd. I was talking about people who work for Breitbart though and not the IP editor. I also tried to hat the thread. Can someone do that for me? I’ve been having some problematic mobile edits. It’s less likely i’ll Be able to do it now after several more ciders. Yes, I am aware that only libtard cabalistic anti-“which article is this again?” Conspirators drink cider. It’s a coincidence. Edaham (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)