Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 11 June 2018

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Montana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization: Omer Benjakob (September 8, 2017). "Are Jews White and Is Richard Spencer a White Supremacist? Misplaced Pages Debates". Haaretz. Retrieved September 9, 2017.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

Alt right term coinage

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

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

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

Lede

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

Neo-Nazi and pan-European condemnation

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

−

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. CNN, Sara Ganim and Chris Welch,. "How white nationalists are losing faith in Trump". CNN. Retrieved 2018-06-11. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. "Texas A&M plans unity event for same time as white nationalist speech". star-telegram. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
3. "Europe's Jews are divided on Trump". The Columbian. 23 November 2016. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
4. Ramasubramanian, Srividya; Miles, Caitlin (23 May 2018). "White Nationalist Rhetoric, Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Colour Blind Racism: Decolonial Critique of Richard Spencer's Campus Visit". Javnost - The Public: 1–15. doi:10.1080/13183222.2018.1463352. ISSN 1318-3222.
5. Cox, John Woodrow (22 November 2016). "'Let's party like it's 1933': Inside the alt-right world of Richard Spencer". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-06-11 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
6. Appelbaum, Daniel Lombroso, Yoni (21 November 2016). "'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2018-06-11.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
7. School, Stanford Law. "Targeting White Supremacy in the Workplace". Stanford Law School. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
8. Mirzoeff, Nicholas. "Empty the museum, decolonize the curriculum, open theory". Nordic Journal of Aesthetics. 25 (53): 6–22. ISSN 2000-1452.
9. Hansen, Sarah (16 February 2018). "Bodies on the Line: The Performativity of Protest". GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. 24 (1): 156–158. ISSN 1527-9375.
10. "Whitefish Jews fight neo-Nazis with faith, peace and interfaith allies". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
11. Bandler, Aaron (6 June 2018). "Signs of Anti-Semitism In University of Michigan Divestment Resolution". Jewish Journal. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
12. "Senator Ben Sasse rips into 'Pajama-Boy-Nazi' Richard Spencer on Twitter". Newsweek. 28 September 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
13. "Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer 'banned from 26 European countries'". The Independent. Retrieved 2018-06-11.
14. Moehlman, Lara. "Richard Spencer won't come to U-M this semester". Retrieved 2018-06-11.

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific BLP violations

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

Nazi rhetoric

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

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

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

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

Unite the Right rally

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

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

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

Europe bans

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class Montana articles
• Low-importance Montana articles
• WikiProject Montana articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Massachusetts articles
• Unknown-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• C-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press