Talk:VDARE/Archive 1

DA King
I have demanded to be removed from the VDARE editorial collective. please see my edit on VDARE page... I hope that WIKI will correct VDARE page and keep my edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dking1952 (talk • contribs).


 * What I think we find confusing is that you demand to be removed from the masthead, but when we've removed your entry here you've reinserted it. This appears to be part of a dispute between yourself and VDARE. We can't make VDARE do anything. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please settle the matter elsewhere. -Will Beback · † · 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An editor removed the assertion that King had asked to be removed, with this comment:
 * No unbiased supporting evidence to this claim. Only the author's own person blog substaniates this claim - this is not a reliable source,
 * Per WP:V, we may use a blog as a source for its author's opinion. We could rephrase it to say that he has claimed to have asked to be removed. But is there actually a dispute over this matter? Has VDARE denied King's claim? -Will Beback · † · 07:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

VDare has not denied his claim. There is a dispute of money, with VDARE claiming that since they paid for his articles, they have every right to keep them, and his name on the site. After being paid a large sum of money DA King began to slander VDARE and it's founder. Currently VDARE seems to be taking the high road by not exposing DA Kings "dirty laundry", I doubt this will continue to continue to be the case if Donald King does not cease. There is currently litigation in this matter.


 * Why don't we call him a "former contributor"? From what you say it appearss unlikely that he'll be making future contributions to the website. -Will Beback · † · 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the best compromise right now. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battle ground!

POV
This statement is POV "Some critics of VDARE point out it publishes racist or racialist material." "point out" implies that the material is racist and racialist by fact. 216.64.125.78 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've changed it to "claim". -Will Beback · † · 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

King compromise
Apparently the old compromise hasn't been sufficient. How can we agree on the treatment of King? We apparently need to add some text to indicate he has tried to remove his name. Any suggestions for some consensus wording? How about "King and VDARE are in a contractual dispute"? -Will Beback · † · 10:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a need to say that Kind has tried to remove his name from the masthead, unless he plans to share WHY he wants his name off, and why the editors are refusing to do so. It seems biased to only show one side of the story.

"anti-immigrant?" PROVE IT.
Point to one "anti-immigrant" writer on vdare. They are immigration REFORMERS, not "anti-immigrant."

Use of the phrase "anti-immigrant" is NOT neutral and is scurrilous.

Also, it is your OPINION that the CCC is "white supremacist." It is not a fact. Just because the ADL and other groups that profit by anti-white racism claim it this similarly does not make it a fact.
 * Oh geez, it's not antiADLanon guy here, too?Gzuckier 21:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is the opinion of many that the CCC is white supremacist. Find a more commonly-used term and we can change it. Phrases like "Are Mexican Immigrants The New Barbary Pirates?" address immigrants, not immigration or reform. Time and again immigants are depicted as criminals. VDARE is widely called anti-immigrant. Anyway, the article doesn't say that VDARE itself is anti-immigrant, only that some of the views expressed there are. Please sign your talk page posts. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't make much sense to argue for immigration restriction and at the same time hold that the immigrants coming in are the cream of humanity. Mirror Vax 20:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that is effectively what some claim. "Some of my best friends are immigrants" and "it's only about the numbers". However VDARE writers sometimes focuse on the harm that immigrants (not just immigration) do to the country, hence the term "anti-immigrant". -Willmcw 20:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Some environmentalist types are opposed to immigration because they are opposed to population growth. But usually, concerns about immigration revolve around social issues like language, poverty, crime, etc. Mirror Vax 22:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with VDARE and the question of whether some opinions expressed on it are anti-immigrant. -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Illegal immigrants ARE criminals. Pointing this out is not anti-"immigrant." Hmong, for instance ARE wildly dependent on welfare and prone to criminality: this, too, is truth, it is not "anti-immigrant" to make te observation.  And I am particularly scratching my head as to the "Barbary Pirates" piece is in any way "anti-immigrant": it is anti-human-smuggling/anti-Slavery.  "Anti-immigrant" is not POV.  It is your (quite biased in my view) opinion and you wield it to tarnish vDare.com specifically and immgration reformers in general. Thanks. -Sixpackshakur


 * Wow... "Hmong, for instance ARE wildly dependent on welfare and prone to criminality: this, too, is truth..."  Dude - it doesn't get much more racist or anti-immigrant than this.  --AStanhope 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Because telling the truth is "racist."  Tarring people with epithets like "anti-immigrant," on the other hand, is "progressive."

Illegal immigrants are not mentioned in the article "Are Mexican Immigrants The New Barbary Pirates?" Instead, the article points out that the pirates were a "terrible scourge" that was (according to a reviewer) "minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims." The short piece concludes that:
 * ''But from a VDARE.COM perspective, the more significant point is why the size of this problem registered so little amongst the political elites of the time. It was because the burden fell on the blue collar workers in unfashionable occupations and remote locations. Sounds familiar."

If you google "VDARE anti-immigrant" you'll see that the view of VDARE as being anti-immigrant is widespread. If you want to make an issue of it we can list all the people who feel that way and give quotations. Or, we can leave it as it is, which simply says that the range of views includes some that are anti-immigrant. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen - please take a closer look at VDare's site. They are not "anti-immigrant".  As previously pointed out, Peter Brimelow is an immigrant.  They are anti ILLEGAL immigration.  Think of it this way, if you will - they are against crime, against breaking the laws of the United States of America.  Are a lot of the articles having to do with Mexican immigrants?  YES! But that is not because they are racist - it is because Mexico has a common border with the US, and thus make up the largest population of *illegal* immigrants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.8.50 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

SPLC section
The nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

I can't see any need to mention that SPLC is a nonprofit, so I'm removing this, please don't add it back without justification. Wnjr 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

White Supremacism
I removed the adjective "white supremacist" from the description of VDARE. They have published articles by people who could plausibly be described as white supremacists, but their mission is to reduce immigration, not prove the superiority of whites over non-whites or gain dominion over non-whites. They've also published articles about the "War on Christmas" - should we lead the article with "VDARE is a pro-Christmas website.."? I think it's better to describe this complex website, which published lots of authors of various political stripes (and races, for that matter), as is down below in the controversy and criticism section, than to put a questionable label on it in the first sentence. Lysine23 (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Selected articles"
What criteria are we using to select the "Selected articles"? Are these just "Favorite articles of Wikipedians"? If so it should be deleted. The website itself maintains a full archive, so I don't see the value of picking out a few random (or non-random) articles. The only justifiable criteria I can imagine would be "noted articles", that is articles which have generated comment or controversy. -Will Beback · † · 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, these aren't just "Favorite articles of Wikipedians" [sic]. I detect a condescending tone here which seems to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. They are examples chosen to show the site's tone and stance. Why fix what isn't broken? Yakuman 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you the editor who added them? If so it merely reflects your opinion of the site's tome and stance, not an objective viewpoint. I didn't mean to be condescending or uncivil, but all articels need to be neutral and verifiable. "Selected article" lists with no selection critieria don't belong in the WP articles of any publication. -Will Beback · † · 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  which seems to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF -- what a ridiculous charge. -- 98.108.222.235 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless these are articles that have been covered by independent sources in the media, they should not be listed. Certainly we should not maintain such a selection. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV fakery
The article currently spends much more time refuting the charges of racism than explaining or contextualizing them. Some of the so-called refutation is nothing more than a personal attack on those who would make those charges. This is a biased article disguised as a neutral article, and those who maintain it, along with those who removed the white supremacist description, clearly have an agenda to defend VDare at all costs. That's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.15.140 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For example, this paragraph: "VDARE has published several responses to the SPLC’s charges..." is in fact not about "responses" as in counter-arguments to specific accusations but very obviously a series of ad-hominem attacks attacking the credibility of the accuser. The only specific (and very weak) argument against the 'racism' charge is at the end of the section which notes that the site publishes some non-white writers. In other words that entire paragraph is just an attack on the SPLC rather than any kind of refutation. It's sort of as if I said to a mugger "you just mugged that old lady" and he replied "you only say that because you're related to her", while running away with her handbag. Because it does not refute the charge and is essentially an irrelevant attack on the SPLC, the paragraph should be removed, or replaced with actual countering of these charges.radek (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. Can you fix it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that this article, with its numerous quotations of the "responses" to VDARE's critics, is quite damning of VDARE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.222.235 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BIAS tag
I have added the BIAS tag. This article basically lists the people involved, then lists all the various groups that criticize VDARE. I happen to know nothing about VDARE. Reading this article, I still know nothing about VDARE. Literally, I find nothing here about VDARE except who is in it and who opposes it and why. This article looks like a bulletin board for people and groups opposing VDARE. This article needs a major rewrite to include appropriate information about what is VDARE, what it does, what makes it notable besides being labeled as a hate group, etc.

For example, the lead paragraph contains a few sentences about VDARE. That's nice, but it is not enough. And it does not actually summarize anything in other sections since there is no other discussion of those few sentences.

Let's keep the discussion to improving the article, not attacking the editors who add BIAS tags to poorly written articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the expand pr advertising tags be more appropriate? Nothing you describe is indicative, per se, of a bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.202.179 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I'll go exchange BIAS for EXPAND. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

EXPAND tag
I am adding the EXPAND tag for the reasons stated above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed duplicated info from intro. That the splc has called them a "hate group" already has an entire section devoted to it, duplicating it in the lead does not inform us about vdare and is simply pushing one viewpoint without a valid reasonGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

One People's Project
There is no policy to support "attributed statement by a reputable/notable organization." However it's removal is supported by WP:SPS "self-published media ... largely not acceptable as sources." Why do you argue for removal of self-pub sources at Southern Adventist University yet paradoxically you keep one here and, according to other editors, on other articles? Seems inconsistent. Lionel (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I argue against self-serving self published sources. Since the One People's Project is a notable organization, I would argue their point of view merits inclusion under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  b  W  04:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell about the One People's Project, it appears to be rather outside the mainstream. It's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but not notable as a reliable source. I'm sure we can find better sources than an organization that uses tactics like throwing eggs (and doesn't the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of this as a hate group make the point well enough anyway?) Kansan (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate site
Expanded SPLC reference to include other anti-immigrant groups on the SPLC's list. Also, minor sentence structure corrections. Groovymaster (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC website has this line:
 * Editor's note: Based on evidence compiled by the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center is adding VDARE to its list of hate sites on the Web.

On that basis, it is justified to say that the SPLC has called them a hate group/website. -Willmcw 23:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I cant believe I missed that note. Put it back in then. I apologize.

Guy Montag 00:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply and for restoring the info. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see you call the categorization "controversial." Has anyone disputed it? -Willmcw 00:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The appelation seems to have been referred to repeatedly on VDARE, with this being the most prominent example: VDARE Endorsed by Southern Poverty Law Center! (Well, we regard it as an endorsement.) It appears that they embrace the label, or at least consider it a mark of honor. -Willmcw 00:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, here is the version that was in the text until recently, which calls the SPLC controversial, rather than their specific reference to VDARE:
 *  The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group, has added VDARE to its list of watched groups, in part due to its publication of essays by Jared Taylor, head of the American Renaissance.
 * Perhaps we should go back to that formulation? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but I think that the catogarization is still controversial. Its an anti immigration group, not a racist group. Guy Montag 03:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're against immigration by White English Speaking Christians, though.Gzuckier 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it being racist?

Guy Montag 16:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy, with all due respect, we need to avoid expressing our own opinions in articles. If you find a source that calls the appelation controversial, or that even disputes the categorization, then that is different. "Hate" and "racism" are two separate ideas, although they may overlap. The SPLC is accusing them of being a hate group, not necessarily of being racist. Anyway, I'll put the old text back, which I think summed up the situation in an NPOV manner. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I am fine with the term, if you explain to me what is exactly a "hate group"?

Guy Montag 20:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Since we're talking about the SPLC's use of the term, I'd suggest you go there for an answer. We also have an article on hate groups in Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

After looking it up, it appears that the definition of a hate group, like hate speech is very murky. If you look at the "psychology of hate groups" in the hate group article, you will see that VDARE does not fit such a profile at all.

Guy Montag 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No doubt it is murky. Yet it appears that VDARE may be engaged in at least one or more of the stages listed in "Psychopathology of hate groups". However, it is not for us to decide one way or another. The NPOV thing to do is simply to report that the SPLC has listed them. -Willmcw 20:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I consider this part of the discussion over then.

Guy Montag

Can anybody explain to me, what is so special about this SPLC and why their opinion matters so much to others. I mean you guys who insist on including SPLC opinion here (and probably anywhere else in Wikipedia, I am just guessing). Are you affiliated with SPLC somehow? As an average Wikipedia user, I absolutely do not care what SPLC opinion is or if they exist at all. I have not heard anything about them until I stumbled on this page about VDARE (while looking for information on Brimelow). Have SPLC purchased some kind of license from US government (quite possible) or UN (also possible) or some Internet authority so their opinion on somebody being racist or not is decisive? Thanks. Rozmysl (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This hate site is so hilarious funny i just had to talk about it. I came from an article i just happened to randomly google. I was searching for the differences between western and eastern music. I got this website with the article "why western music is superior to eastern music" and i already had some idea what i was getting myself into but wow it got so good. the overlying reasons the writer gives is that western music is derived from western israel and eastern from eastern israel. i think he really meant it too. he then goes on to say african music is totally not an issue in this topic because they have never contributed to music at all except to "pop" music that he just decided to eliminate even though he mentioned that it was all western and also that it has heavy influence from africa. It hit an all time note of awesome when he started talking about China in particular to define his argument about how bad eastern music is compared to western music. it started off as unanimity. I'm pretty sure he was trying to go for uniformity as most ignorant people usually say but he decided on unanimity. then he went on to say it has a single pitch that murder and love share the same pitch among other things he called reasons. and the cherry on the top of this mountain of awesome was that he in all his amazing worldly knowledge said and I quote "In the Chinese language there is no actual word for democracy or even government. A leader, an emperor (Shang Ti, or T’ien Shen) is the sum of social existence." ok some context because i'm not sure how many of you guys here know Chinese but his "emperor" actually means God or at least some divine ruler in heaven.


 * The whole thing was just such a great example and totally cannon fodder for american ignorance and stupidity. imean seriously you couldn't find a better troll to prove a counter point. btw i've seen many articles by ignorant americans making fun of other cultures but you know you usually get these generalizations or accepted stereotypes so its harder to point out the lol points. this website just makes it so much easier. so bookmarked lol! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Blanking an important part of an entry is a classic instance of vandalism (WP:VAN). Please cease vandalizing this page, User:Will Beback. Since WP:V relates only to dubious sources that are not the original source itself, claiming "source" as a rationale for the vandalism is an irrelevant and specious cover story. Thus, articles at VDARE cannot possibly be dubious "sources" about VDARE.

As for your criticism, "If so it merely reflects your opinion of the site's tome [sic] and stance, not an objective viewpoint," that too is specious, since any judgment in selecting articles is going to be the judgment of a human being. Your vandalism merely reflects your opinion; however, fabricating reasons for vandalism that claim to be based in WP rules but have no such objective basis is a clear non-no. You are simply doing anything possible to sandbag WP readers and editors alike. 70.23.199.239 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "selected articles" that are selected without an objective criteria will reflect the judgment of the editor making the selection. That's why such lists are not a good idea. -Will Beback · † · 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an objective criterion, not "an ... criteria." And your "yes" was not a yes at all. 70.23.199.239 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no objective reason to include these "selected articles" as opposed to other selected articles. If you can provide some reasoning we can discuss it. But absent any logic for its inclusion, this list will be removed as a violation of the neutral point of view policy. -Will Beback · † · 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAN explicitly says that this is not vandalism, and instructs editors not to make that accusation. -- 98.108.222.235 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says no such thing. Stop lying about WP rules.24.90.190.96 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC view in lede
Let's calmly assess this hit piece...I mean article.

It is at least 75% devoted to criticism of vDare, and gives a controversial group--the SPLC--vastly undue weight, given that organization's own widespread reputational issues. Why is the opinion of the SPLC, which has itself been called a "hate group" by a prominent mainstream academic, so important that it belongs in the introduction?

Why, too, the politically-loaded and absurdly biased description of Virginia Dare's parents as "immigrants"? It is nothing more than a naked attempt at cheap irony by openly anti-Vdare editors. The Virginia Dare entry does not refer to her parents as immigrants and, in point of law, they were not.

(Contrast this piece with the glowing entry for the SPLC, where each criticism is loudly shouted down).

Is there any chance at all that this article can communicate some actual information about vDare? HedgeFundBob (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You already answered your own question as to why it is needed in the introduction, as you would know if you have read WP:LEAD which was mentioned by myself and another editor. Who, pray tell, is the "prominent mainstream academic" that has called the SPLC a "hate group"? 2 lines of K  303  13:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SPLC smear was solved in similar case: Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 4. Undue. --Dezidor (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That discussion is nothing to do with this article. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The solution at FRC would also work here.– Lionel (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, since the lead now fails WP:LEAD clearly and unambiguously. The close at that article doesn't apply to this one, I'll quote it in full.
 * "Leaving aside the political and personal disputes that inevitably intrude on discussions of this type of subject matter, the locus of this dispute is a potential tension between WP:LEAD's call for 'prominent controversies' to be included in the lead's summary of 'the most important points' about a subject, and WP:UNDUE's guidance not to give excessive 'prominence of placement' to matters that do not receive that degree of prominence in the overall body of reliably sourced material about the subject. However, there is no need for these to be in conflict. The argument from the 'don't include in the lead' position is that the overall treatment of the SPLC's 'hate group' designation is an excessive proportion of the article, and from my review of the arguments and the article itself, I find it hard to disagree. The article as a whole is appallingly recentist and virtually begs for someone to pick up a book, or at least do a Google book search, so that the article can represent the organization's almost 30-year history and not just current events. I realize I'm being harsh here, but this point needs to be clear: seeking proportional treatment in the lead compared to the body carries virtually no weight as an argument when the article itself is so unbalanced and newsy. If in the context of a fuller, more encyclopedic article, the recent SPLC controversy turns out to be one of the more significant controversies, then a brief allusion to it in the lead might be warranted, but that is a bridge that will have to be crossed in the future."
 * The reasoning for leaving it out specifically applies to the content of *that* article, citing things like a "30-year history". It doesn't automatically apply to this article, and as such it remains upon those wanting to leave the lead as a POV advert for VDARE to seek consensus for the change on this article. 2 lines of K  303  09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dezidor has missed the point when he carried on edit warring. The whole point is that the lead is supposed to summarise the article, so the sentence was a summary of the section he points to. Vague references to undue in edit summaries are no substitute for discussion of disputed changes. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarise the article? SPLC is only group (or person) that doesn´t like VDARE because it share different ideology? --Dezidor (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the article before commenting further, it might help. 2 lines of K  303  10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it and I saw secition about contributors, I read about Podhoretz, Hurricane Katrina, Derbyshire, MacDonald... No reason to exaggerate the importance of claim of one left wing group. There is nothing interesting that VDARE and SPLC do not like each other. --Dezidor (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Intro must include mention of any significant controversies. While SPLC may be the only group which makes a practice of designating "hate groups", there are plenty of reliable sources who have described the subject in comparable terms.
 * As for the contributors, unfortunately publications are often defined as much by their worst contributors as by their best. In any case we can't make a decision about the quality of the subject on our own - all we should do is summarize reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I agree that information that many notable liberal (in American sense)/left wing groups, open border advocates, some neocons etc. do not like VDARE and lead a campaign against it can be important. As well as that many notable conservatives, antiimmigration activists, some classical liberals etc. prise VDARE and publish articles there. But why mention only one claim made by one group in lede?
 * 2. Would you support VDARE´s claim about SPLC in the lede of article about SPLC? Or do you support idea that only characteristic of the right-wing groups made by leftist groups may be at the beginning of articles and not vice versa. --Dezidor (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This article, like any other, should include all significant points of view. If there are significant views which haven't been included they should be added, and then the intro should reflect the amended article. As for reciprocity, it's not really an issue. If the New York Times expresses a view on a minor politician, that's probably significant. If a minor politician expresses a view on the New York Times, that is probably not significant. VDARE is basically a group blog with a shoestring budget. Its views on topics are rarely significant, though the views of individual contributors may be. In general, what goes into the SPLC article should be discussed at that article's talk page.   Will Beback    talk    19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream view of VDARE certainly belongs in the lede. How that is sourced is certainly open for updating, but the broad view is in alignment with the SPLC statement. If you are interested in updating content at SPLC, I suggest you take your concerns there, as here it amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. aprock (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * News articles about VDARE from the past week:
 * Supremacists Showcased At CPAC Conservative Conference
 * BROWN: CPAC sleeping with racists?
 * COLUMN: Critic helpfully honest, but hopelessly wrong
 * Latino Group Blasts CPAC for allowing hate group VDARE to Speak at their Conference
 * One of the four articles references the SPLC hate group designation, indicating at once that the the negative perception of VDARE is broad, and that the SPLC view is current and notable. aprock (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm open to suggestions about other content in the lead in addition/instead of the SPLC designation to adequately summarise the article, as the "including any prominent controversies" part of WP:LEAD says to do, but which this lead totally fails to do. If editors wish to argue for that lead then it's going to be a waste of time, but if you want to argue for something which does summarise the article then go right ahead and make a suggestion. 2 lines of K  303  14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The intro already contains mentions of the SPLC's dislike of VDARE. Does it need to be in the very first sentence? The SPLC is mentioned before VDARE itself is in this article. 67.83.150.238 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
Including the major critics of organizations is an important part of making comprehensive articles on those organizations. The fact that VDARE has been labelled as a hate group by an important anti-hate group organization is clearly relevant to accurately describing VDARE. Now that characterization may be wrong, and counter-arguments can be made, but it is inappropriate to simple pretend that criticism doesn't exist by deleting mention of it from the article. -Willmcw 01:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Shall we then re-write the SPLC article and say that many accuse the SPLC of being [anti-white] racists? No, no one would agree to that, even though the charge has been made by several organizations/people. This is the exact same situation. VDARE is not a self-declared racist organization (it doesn't matter what some self-appointed "racism watchdog organization" says), so such a charge should not be in this article, to include it is pov. B Sveen.
 * Actually, if you go read the SPLC article you will see that it has a couple of paragraphs devoted to criticism of the center. It is important for every article about a person, place, or thing that we include not only what they say about themselves, but also what others say about them. If you want to balance the SPLC designation with favorable designations by others then that would improve the article. But you cannot simply delete facts. -Willmcw 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's the point, it is hardly a "fact" that VDARE is a racist organization. It is not a racist organization. Just because SPLC says it is does not make it so, and just because SPLC makes an allegation doesn't mean that we should automatically add it to the article. To say"splc says vdare is racist" is pov & false (vdare is not openly racist, they publish non-whites, they don't really adovcate hatred at all; SPLC is just interested in silencing people who don't agree with them, that's all this amounts to, so it shouldnt be added). The article already mentions that vdare has critics, and that is enough, we shouldn't force this "SPLC alleges racism" down the throat of people who happen to read the article.


 * Calling a non-racist organization racist is not fair and should be avoided. Therefore I strongly protest your addition of the SPLC racism charges. -B Sveen


 * To say"splc says vdare is racist" is pov & false  You appear not to understand what the word "false" means. It would be false if SPLC doesn't say that VDARE is racist, but it does. You also appear not to understand the concept of POV -- "VDARE is racist" is POV; "SPLC says VDARE is racist" is not POV, it's a cited fact. For real POV, all one need do is look at your own comments, which are full of unsubstantiated ideological assertions. -- 98.108.222.235 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

excellent job on the new edits, Willmcw. These I can live with, & I promise you I will not revert. --B Sveen, December 6, 2004
 * Glad it worked out. If we can find some awards or commendations or other positive facts to add to the article then that is relevent too. The good and the bad both have a place.  Thanks for your help in making it a better article.  -Willmcw 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it right to put some other organization's attack on this organization in the first paragraph of the article? The SPLC's criticism has a section of its own, why does it have to be the first thing you read in the article? Can't it just open with "VDARE is a radical right-wing newspaper"? Anybody who cares about what the SPLC has to say already sees "radical right-wing" as a synonym to "hate group" anyhow. 67.83.150.238 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not once on VDARE's "Why VDARE?" page (http://vdare.org/why_vdare.htm) does author Peter Brimelow mention that Virgnia Dare's parents were immigrants. Does anyone else find this ironic?
 * Yes I suppose it is ironic. I'd also say it's original research unless we can find someone who has said so in print. In fact, Brimelow and at least one of his columnists, Michelle Malkin, are immigrants as well. That irony has been written and printed, so you should be able to find references if you'd like to add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have noted this fact in the article (as neutrally as possible).

Virginia Dare's parents were colonists, not immigrants. VDare has discussed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.41.137 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * >>Not once on VDARE's "Why VDARE?" page (http://vdare.org/why_vdare.htm) does author Peter Brimelow mention that Virgnia Dare's parents were immigrants. Does anyone else find this ironic?<< Let's see. He says right at the beginning: "She was the first English child to be born in the New World...It says something about the mettle of those settlers that any pregnant woman would cross the Atlantic." Maybe he just foolishly assumed his readers would have sufficient grasp of English to understand what "first English child" and "cross the Atlantic" meant?
 * Maybe you're being a jerk? It's a fact that he never mentions that they were immigrants -- which is ironic given that they certainly were, having come across the Atlantic and all. -- 98.108.222.235 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren’t immigrants. Thus, you understand neither the concept of “immigrant,” nor that of “irony.” From those lacks of understanding, it may further be inferred that you fail to understand the meanings of terms like “jerk,” “fact,” “and,” etc. 24.90.121.4 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I also tidied up the grammar, and took out these two lines: "Supporters of VDARE argue that the anti-immigration issue is why it publishes articles by writers with deep links to white supremacist groups" and "who Brimelow contrasts with the specter of the last White family leaving Los Angeles, California". The lines were too confusing, and the latter is rather too close to SPLC's own description. Oh, and I changed the description of SPLC from "left-leaning" to "progressivist", in keeping with the more neutral descriptions of VDARE as "paleoconservative" etc. (rather than "right-leaning").

Neoconservative?
By no means is Peter Brimelow a neoconservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artognou (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 April 2005 (UTC)


 * Brimelow is a paleoconservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITMotors (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Salon comment
I've removed from the lead a comment attributed to Salon (website) that cannot be found anywhere in the article body. It's undue, specially for the lead. It's literally name calling by a single editor of a left-wing tabloid (the exact quote is: Peter Brimelow, founder of white supremacist site VDARE). There is no other mention or further explanation for the "classification" in the text. This is WP:UNDUE by the book, please read it. If anything, SPLC's "intelligence report" giving the same classification (as white supremacists) is the relevant thing to include here, which is why I didn't touch it (discussion above from 2015 seems to indicate the same opinion regarding the inclusion of SPLC's classification). The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight - this is achieved by including the SPLC classification, and broken by adding the Salon one, as it does not summarize the body of the article nor has appropriate weight, unlike the SPLC part. PS: I'm not watching this page, please ping me. though I'm trusting the editor who added that reference since the link simply points to a search page. Saturnalia0 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You should have started this after I reverted you, certainly after Greyfell reverted you. No comment yet on the content issue as I'm off to walk my dog - priorities,you know. Doug Weller  talk 08:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it was either one of you who should have started a discussion on why to keep it, as I did provide an explanation in the edit summaries and only the last editor asked me "how so?", which led me to create this section expanding on the reason. But anyway, water under the bridge. Have a good time walking your dog. Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact Salon referred to them as white nationalists in an article is not of any significance.  It is significant that that is how the SPLC describes them since news media regularly mention their description in news reports.  TFD (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the description of the group as white nationalist or supremacist, supported by factual descriptions of the group as such published in Time and the San Jose Mercury News. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since terms such as "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are inherently normative, and defamatory, as used at WP and by the MSM, there is no such thing as a "description" of a group or person as "WN" or "WS." 2604:2000:9046:800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * VDARE is associated with white nationalism/white supremacy according to reliable sources, including the mainstream media. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia generally reflects the mainstream academic and journalistic consensus on topics like this. I'm not sure what you mean by normative, but the reason these words are used, according to sources, is based on VDARE's willingness to publish racist and xenophobic content. Describing organizations in accurate terms according to expert analysis in simple, direct language isn't even close to defamatory. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone is "associated with" some other political movement or ideology, without concrete evidence of them actually reflecting such ideology, is inherently a smear and WP:NPOV. It is naked guilt by association, and nowhere near the standards expected of WP. If these sources actually demonstrate VDARE's willingness to publish racist and xenophobic content, then they should be cited actually doing so, in a manner that clearly demonstrates that the content "willingly published" is actually "racist and xenophobic". 70.24.7.7 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If reliable sources say this, and they do, than so does Wikipedia. Citing examples of their racist and xenophobic content would be original research. Besides, someone could just come along and say that whatever example of their "human biodiversity" pseudoscience I might chose to highlight isn't enough. We would then have to debate the merits of a separate topic, but this talk page is for discussing the article on VDARE, not scientific racism, and not Islamophobia. The way we summarize VDARE is through reliable sources, which do not accept VDARE's alt-right training wheels as anything other than racist fear-mongering. They certainly don't often treat it as legitimate scholarship. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I expected that the sources themselves include citations that demonstrate the content in question, or else what they're saying doesn't meet a combined standard of notability and impartiality. It doesn't matter how reliable a source is; that X is "associated with" the negatively-viewed Y does not impugn X, and the only real reason for mentioning it is to encourage a negative view of X without actually proving anything. If the publication of white nationalist views on VDARE makes VDARE white nationalist, then the Guardian is socialist by the same reasoning; and Olympia Press somehow manages to simultaneously endorse female-submissive BDSM pornography while also being radical feminist.
 * That said, I don't understand how an advocacy organization can be considered a "reliable source" for anything in good faith, especially on a topic related to their own advocacy. I'll note that the SPLC's objection is summarized here as The Southern Poverty Law Center describes VDARE as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites", including Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, J. Philippe Rushton and Samuel T. Francis., yet the corresponding Wikipedia articles describe none of these individuals as anti-Semitic. In fact, we read that Sailer believes Jews to be on average more intelligent than white people (and unlike with MacDonald, I see no presented evidence of any attempt on Sailer's part to allege any kind of self-interested conspiracy); that Taylor is described also by the SPLC as unusual among the radical right in "his lack of anti-Semitism" (but never mind them citing any "among the radical right" who are anti-Semitic); and that Rushton is a former fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (the Guggenheims being Ashkenazi Jews). (The article also makes claims about Rushton that I don't think would pass WP:BLP muster, and which aren't reproduced on his page.) If the anti-Semitism claim is intended to hang on MacDonald's inclusion, that could at least be mentioned here.
 * Furthermore, the parts in quotation marks aren't even direct quotes. "anti-immigration hate website" doesn't appear continuously - the page actually reads Once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page, VDARE has now become a meeting place for many on the radical right. in the middle, and then, separately Editor's note: Based on evidence compiled by the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center is adding VDARE to its list of hate sites on the Web. in a footnote. Meanwhile, "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites" is completely synthesized - the phrase "white nationalist" doesn't even appear on the page, nor does "race scientist" (the closest it gets is a description of eugenics as conceived by Taylor). "Regularly publishes" is also completely made up; the article's phrasing is "carries archives"; "it has run articles"; "has even begun to publish"; "also runs articles". "Regularly" is never used. You were saying something about WP:OR? Then there's the part where this source dates to only about 4 years into the site's history, with another 15 years since.
 * As for Islamophobia, even the current article content doesn't mention anything about that, so I have no idea what you're talking about. 70.24.7.7 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a couple of refs got swapped, so I fixed it. This is a common and trivial issue, and the correct ref was this one. Otherwise, this comment is a large amount of space spent on little substance. Wikipedia doesn't expect every source to cite sources for every statement, because that's absurd. Regarding the SPLC, doctors are reliable experts on diseases, even though they advocate practices and policies which are opposed to diseases. Likewise, the SPLC are experts in hate groups such as VDARE. They are not experts in spite of their advocacy, but specifically because that is a central focus of the organization. The only reason advocacy would undermine their reliability is if their opposition to prejudice was not acceptable for some other reason. As for the rest, many sources describe this as a racist pseudo-academic website. Not accidentally, not occasionally, but by definition. I have note seen any sources which credibly refute that description. If you have an other actionable points buried in this wall of text, try again, only this time cut to the chase. Grayfell (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did cut to the chase right off the top: guilt-by-association is a fallacy, period, and would continue to be such no matter how reliable of a source used it. I am flatly not convinced of the impartiality of the SPLC here; they have a vested interest in identifying groups as "hate groups", since their continued existence and meaning depends on having such enemies to take to court and to cite when looking for donations. Doctors cannot plausibly identify non-diseases as diseases in the same way, and get by just fine regardless. It's not as if the SPLC's judgment is universally accepted by others, either. I presume you retract the comment about Islamophobia, since you haven't addressed that. 70.24.7.7 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. According to those sources, VDARE consistently publishes content from a white supremacist perspective. Describing something accurately is not "guilt by association", and labeling something a fallacy doesn't transform it into a fallacy, nor would that make it incorrect even if it did. I stand by my comments about Islamophobia. VDARE's anti-immigration dog-whistling is obvious, and as you point out, it's not even mentioned in the article (yet) so there's nothing to "retract". The entire point of that comment was that we should not debate these terms, but instead, the article should reflect reliable sources. Focusing on a passing comment and missing the underlying point serves no purpose other than gish galloping. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no concept of “reliable sources.” “Reliable sources” simply means, in practice, “Sources that share the political prejudices” of the Marxist clique that has taken over WP. In other words, other Marxists.


 * Today, in Marxist precincts like WP, the New York Times, etc., “white supremacist” simply means anyone opposed to the genocide of the white race. VDARE is, in fact, opposed to said genocide. You, clearly, are not.


 * “Dog-whistling” is a notorious, Marxist code-phrase, which works solely as a dog-whistle to fellow Marxists.


 * “Gish galloping.” I thought, I love the Gish sisters, too! Then I looked it up. It seems to be the sort of behavior exemplified by … your last comment! You’re all over the place. 2604:2000:1580:45C6:0:D54B:FA08:974D (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

VDARE & SPLC
Guy, can you give us the source for this sentence?
 * ... that the SPLC is attempting to use guilt by association with controversial individuals to demonize the internet site.

I don't doubt it, but we should attribute a direct claim to someone. Brimelow? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein of Harper's Magazine and David Horowitz of Frontpage.com have been making these claims. Although I extrapolated a little bit. I do not think you will find a direct quote, but this is the general idea from the articles they have written.

Also, VDARE has made this same claim when the editor of American Renessiance made a contributing article on their website. I am well aware that unsavory characters such as Kevin MacDonald sometimes contribute as guest editors, but SPLC has used their opinions to lump VDARE in the same catagory as them.

Guy Montag 23:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If "VDARE" (Brimelow) doesn't say so, then we shouldn't put words in his mouth. As a "writers collective", I'm not sure of the status of "guest" writers. The "hate website" designation is directly linked to publishing Taylor. In any case, I'm going to remove the assertion until we can find a direct quote for it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vdare is NOT an "anti-immigration" site. It is an immigration reform site.

I agree. Change it.

Guy Montag 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The article does not, and has not, said that "Vdare is an anti-immigration site". Anti-immigrant views are expressed by its writers, but that is a different matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is way too much text involving SPLC criticisms. A sentence or two would have sufficed. The paragraph should be shortened considerably. This article is almost more about the SLPC than it is about V-Dare.--Bigplankton 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IPer your comment I've removed a sentence which was just a counter-attack on the SPLC, and which did not add anything to the discussion of VDARE. -Will Beback 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't have removed the counter of the criticisms. Disingenous. Now the article takes on an even more biased tone.--Bigplankton 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I kept the rebuttal to the criticism. But criticizing the critic for tax problems, etc, does not address the criticisms, and serves no purpose other than as an ad hominem. Criticism of the SPLC belongs in that article, and is given plenty of room there. -Will Beback 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh okay, not too bad. The other criticism had more meat on it's bones though. j/k --Bigplankton 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, at the moment there are about 121 words devoted to the SPLC criticism, and about 191 devoted to the response. -Will Beback 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article puts way too much emphasis on SPLC's criticism of VDARE. It reads more like an SPLC press release than an encyclopedia article. It is worth a bullet point in a "criticism" section, but it is WP:UNDUE weight to have SPLC's criticisms in the main summary. Having a dedicated section for SPLC's viewpoint further compounds this issue. Tonytiger76 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just changed an error re Brimelow's citizenship status. He is a sworn citizen, and his children are by birthright. His late wife was a permenent resident.

"dead link" could be "revived" by use of a Wayback machine page
Apparently, the (now "dead") link to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285 -- the one that got deleted during this edit (it's the very last thing in the DIFF listing -- with wikitext of that got deleted) could easily be "revived", now; ...because the Wayback machine does have an "archival" copy of that erstwhile (now dead) web page -- at https://web.archive.org/web/20091129102447/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285 e.g.
 * "Keeping America White", an article by the SPLC critical of VDARE

I do not have time to read up 100% on the myriad discussions about stuff from SPLC (like, external URLs, and whether they belong in the VDARE section or not). But IMHO, if the main reason why this specific "External link" got deleted, (over a year ago), was due to being a "dead" link ... then, wouldn't it be better to just change it, to use the Wayback machine "archival" copy, instead of "not" having that [erstwhile] "External link" listed, at all?

This question is being asked, here, partly to get information that might sum things up, (and maybe save some time). The reasons also include the fact that "this" explanation (given here) probably would not fit in an "edit comment".

Any advice? Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

VDARE, as an actual encyclopedia entry might look
“VDARE is an American Webzine focused on patriotic immigration reform. It was established on Christmas Eve, 1999, by Editor-Publisher Peter Brimelow.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VDARE&oldid=914159812 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Patriotic" is not the same as nationalist-racist. I see nothing actionable here. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. POV editor doesn't like that an article doesn't reflect their POV. Dog bites man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Or rather, why did you ask a question that had already been answered? Hit the accompanying link. 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * VDARE regularly publishes articles by John Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Brenda Walker, Steve Sailer, James Kirkpatrick, Pat Buchanan, et al., as well as podcasts, blog items, letters from readers, books, tweets and a journal. It maintains an archive of tens of thousands of articles, letters, and podcasts it has published.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VDARE&oldid=914159812 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! I was confused by the typo in the sction title.  You don't want to show us what a good encyclopedia article on VDARE would look like, you want to show us what an encyclopedia article written by VDARE's PR department would like like.  Sorry, we don't take advertisements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, you take advertisements. WP is lousy with advertisements presented as encyclopedia articles. 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * VDARE sponsors an annual “War on Christmas” contest, inviting submissions on the most outrageous attacks on the Christian and American national holiday. 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained, Wikipedia is explicitly not for promotion, especially not for pearl-clutching publicity stunts. Cite reliable, independent sources for any proposed changes. Lacking actionable proposals, this section should be hatted. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This one sentence seems POV-y
Well, one thing I think won't be too controversial is that this sentence isn't so good: " Established in 1999, the website's editor is Peter Brimelow, who believes that "whites built American culture" and that "it is at risk from non-whites who would seek to change it"." I mean... I hope we can all agree that people are not normally introduced this way. Except when they are being introduced by an extremely partisan publication. For instance: "John Smith, who believes that "snippet 1" and "snippet 2". That's rather abnormal for Wikipedia, right? Not unheard of, I'm sure there are some circumstances where it would make sense to see something like that. But it's rare. Also, those are just two fragments of what I presume is a larger essay of some sort. That essay could be better or worse than what those sentences make it sound like. I'd like to change that sentence to something better. Even if it just became "... the website's editor is Peter Brimelow", that would maybe be better. It's his website, we can probably assume he has his similar views to the website. I'm going to wait a few days to see if anyone objects and then I'll change it. If you object... try to convince me. I'm willing to be convinced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's just because unlike a website like RationalWiki, Wikipedia has a NPOV policy and can't simply write "Peter Brimelow, who is a batshit ultra-racist Neo-Nazi piece of shit". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is how he is described in sources specifically discussing his role as VDARE's editor. Since the sources think it's important and relevant to understanding VDARE itself, it's reasonable for us to reflect them.  If it were being pulled out of an unrelated source that didn't discuss VDARE, it would be WP:SYNTH and I could understand your objection, but that isn't the case here - sources discussing Brimelow's status as VDARE's founder place significant emphasis on his views in order to establish what that means. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This entry is a dumpster fire.
This entry is walking, talking POV bias. It appears more like SPLC propaganda rather than an encyclopedia entry. Every reference to white supremacy, white nationalism, and racism is an OPINION, not a fact. The authors of the offending content employ the "Somebody said this..." loophole to portray opinions as if they are sourced facts. But none of the underlying citations contain ANY facts whatsoever supporting the contentions. Every entry in Wikipedia could be sabotaged with propaganda in this fashion. It is factual to state that VDARE opposes immigration. It is factual to state that SOME white nationalists have published articles in its pages. It is not factual to call VDARE a white supremacist, white nationalist and racist organization based on subjective opinions ESPECIALLY when the website specifically denies being that. If VDARE admitted to it, that would be totally different. This page needs adult supervision because the people protecting the current content cannot be reasoned with. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding to my previous criticism, this entry violates WP:RS, WP:BIASED, WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE.

Most of the citations refer to statements made directly by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC) about VDARE or are from media articles referencing SPLC. The WP entry for SPLC itself contains a section called Controversy Regarding Hate Group and Extremist Designations. That section includes copious citations questioning the reliability of SPLC as an unbiased source, including several defamation lawsuits for unwarranted designations. The citations also provide evidence that the SPLC has made designations for the purpose of fundraising.

I submit that every subjective opinion about VDARE being white supremacist, white nationalist, or racist relies on questionable and biased sources with poor fact checking. Rmmiller44 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The SPLC has consistently been determined at WP:RSN to be a reliable source. It's opinins are valid as an expert source, as long as they are identified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then they're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the discussion under one header.
 * Regarding SPLC, unless VDARE is explicitly mentioned along with criticism of their methods, then it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH to challenge SPLC's conclusions about VDARE. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the SLPC has NOT been determined as a reliable source. It is repeatedly questioned as a source which is the very definition of WP:QUESTIONABLE. It's only usefulness as a source is for what itself says.

My comment is not WP:SYNTH. You dont know what that means. WP:SYNTH is combining facts from different sources to reach a conclusion. I referred to the SLPC entry to demonstrate that there is substantial controversy about its authoritativeness. You yourself provided the rest of the evidence. There is a long history of questioning SLPC. You have an odd sense of what "consensus" is. Consensus means that there are NO UNREASONABLE DISAGREEMENTS over the content. My edits left factual information about VDARE intact that you presumably do not dispute.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Splc&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant to say NO REASONABLE DISAGREEMENTS. Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement regarding SPLC not being a reliable source is incorrect, as a search of WP:RSN will show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * you've got 127 edits and you are telling Binkerstnet, with almost 300,000 edits, that they don't understand policy? Doug Weller  talk 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of us work for a living. The number of edits one has is IRRELEVANT to the truth of the matter asserted. Your comment isnt discussing the issue; you're just making ad hominem attacks against me. WP:SYNTH means combining facts from different sources to reach conclusions not presented in any of the sources. Binksternet appears well versed in throwing around WP terms to stifle debate. It does NOT violate WP:SYNTH to raise WP:RS or WP:BIAS. Wikipedians are required to work toward CONSENSUS. Consensus isnt a majority vote of people who happen to be watching. It is not tiresome exchanges that never discuss the issues, and waiting until people get fatigued into submission. The Talk history that Beyond My Ken referred to does NOT demonstrate a consensus that SPLC is RS. Moreover, I didnt even delete every statement of and reference to SPLC, just the conclusory and unsupported ones. No one is "whitewashing" SPLCs opinion about this group, as alleged. It is OBVIOUS that this entire entry is a hit-piece on VDARE and not an encyclopedia entry.Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
 * "@Rmmiller44: you've got 127 edits and you are telling Binkerstnet, with almost 300,000 edits, that they don't understand policy? Doug Weller talk 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)"
 * @DougWeller You’ve been around here long enough to know that you’re not supposed to harass the newbies, and that you are not allowed to throw people’s edit counts in their faces. Plus, tag-teaming people whose politics you hate is a form of stalking. Cheers! 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But, you know, when the newbies are acting like boobies... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is complete Propaganda. Must be fixed 12:41 July 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.176.93 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)