I only came onto this article seeing it mentioned in an ArbCom report and noticed what I believe was a significant BLP violation (but otherwise have no interest in editing the article). There was a edit war that broke out based on a comment I had made at ArbCom, and while I voiced my opinion on the talk page and a subsequent WP:AN/EW report, I think this is a point that needs to be addressed.

Currently, the Jared Taylor article ledes off as Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. There is no denying that popular press opinion is that he has views that align with white supremacy and the AR publication is also taken to be a white supremacist publication. His notability appears to be explicitly tied to how his views are taken as such. These are well-sourced statements that are covered in Taylor's article under "Views" and on the American Renaissance (magazine). But both the "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" labels appear to be terms that Taylor actively denies stating he is (through non-SELFPUB articles in reliable sources like the WSJ). As such, having both of these terms in the lede, to me, screams a BLP violation in favoring what others have said with subjective and potentially libelous language over what he claims he is. (In contrast, if someone was convicted for committing murder but they claimed they were innocent even after the convinction, that conviction is an objective measure so stating the person is a convicted murderer over their claims of innocence is reasonable under BLP/POV).

I do not discount the need to express what the popular press opinion of him is in the lede - that can be done after a few sentences that are neutral to establish the basic facts about Taylor. But having those statements in the first sentence is a major POV and BLP issue, creating a specific negative tone for the article, at least to me. I'm looking to get additional opinions on this. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If a notable person doesn't want to have the descriptors "white nationalist" and "white supremacy" associated with himself, then perhaps he shouldn't publicly espouse views and publish articles that endorse white nationalism and white supremacy. That's why we rely on secondary sources at Wikipedia - Jared Taylor can proclaim he isn't a white nationalist until the day he dies, but if reliable sources describe him as such (which they do), then that's how he's described here. I don't see how it's a POV issue at all. Should we strike the mentions of murder from Charles Manson's page because they "create a specific negative tone for the article"? That's nonsense. Rockypedia (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rockypedia here. I have only passing knowledge of this article and its subject, but I have a broad interest in proper weighting of reliable sources as against statements originating with the subject themselves. This is obviously a BLP issue, and so must be approached very carefully. But BLP concerns can be allayed by strong sourcing. While it's absolutely proper in some instances to take a subject's own thoughts and statments into account (per WP:BLPSELFPUB and others) at best, that's one part of a constellation of sources. Furthermore, in cases where the "negative" bits are a primary driver of notability, I think there's no choice but to squarely address them. Whether in the lead or elsewhere, this is, to me, a question of sourcing. Either it is strong (as I think it is here), and thus can and should be used, or it is not, and it should be excised entirely. Just my thoughts. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

e/c ::It's NOT what he's noted for and he "strenuously" denies he's a White Nationalist. I think it's bias, slander to say that in the lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But he is noted for founding and editing American Renaissance, which is widely considered a white nationalist supremacist publication. He can deny it all he wants, but his actions speak louder than his words. clpo13_(talk) 17:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that he founded and edits American Renaissance. This dispute is about whether criticism should be hooked onto the AmRen rack in an attempt to indirectly state something as fact about the nominal subject.

I don't have a problem with the criticism in the second paragraph of the lede on Jared Taylor as Taylor and organizations he's associated with have been said to promote racist ideologies (black/white/yellowm/blue supremacy are racist ideologies) and it's worded as it should be, but I would and do have a problem when that criticism is tacked on to indirectly state "Samuel Jared Taylor is a racist/supremacist/bad guy" as fact.

This is a BLP and POV issue, and symptomatic of the larger problem of bias in left-right articles on wikipedia. Zaostao (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question for me is this, Zaostao could there ever be enough RSes calling Mr. Taylor a "white nationalist" for you to agree it's proper to describe him as such? I'd be curious to know your answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about the white supremacist hook, not the Taylor-white nationalism association--which I've never argued against. Please stay on topic. Zaostao (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Do forgive me. Allow me to restate. The question for me is this, Zaostao could there ever be enough RSes calling Mr. Taylor's magazine a "white supremacist" publication for you to agree it's proper to describe it as such? I'd be curious to know your answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the white supremacist description of American Renaissance—it's more of an Asian/Ashkenazi supremacist magazine if anything as it has presented data about Asians/Ashkenazim having on average higher IQs than whites and such—but I have no problem with its own article stating that it has been "described as a white supremacist publication by sources" or such. The issue is about taking that description of it by various sources (no matter how reliable) and hooking it into the article in discussion's lede in an attempt to state as fact that Taylor is a white supremacist--which I would never agree with as it's a BLP vio, no. Zaostao (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(As an aside, how I read the situation and comments by Taylor, the white nationalism part may or may not be as contentious which is I noted it, but certainly the white supremacy connection is a very real issue of discussion given Taylor's denial of it). --MASEM (t) 19:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious of your opinion as well, Masem. Surely there must be a critical mass of RSes possible that we could report something like that, no matter what the subject says, right? I'm not saying you have to agree it's the case here, but it could happen, no? Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For a subjective label like "white supremacist", which the living person or active organization deny, there is no critical mass of sources to allow us to lead off an article about that person or organization calling them tied to white supremacy. A critical mass of sources saying that would make it a valid part in discussing the criticism of that person or organization and their views, and the larger the mass, the more likely that will appear in the lede under WEIGHT, but you don't lead off an article with POV statements. You start it off with neutral and factual information. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then I guess the issue is simply that you are giving the subject of the article undue weight, from my point of view. As my grandmother liked to say, à chacun son goût. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor has also personally rejected the white nationalist descriptor, and I think the article should probably state Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race-realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. and so on. This was how the article had been for a lot of its existence (here's a 2year old revision for example), but the supremacy link is main BLP issue here, I agree. (Here's a screengrab of what I believe would be a neutral lede consistent with BLP and NPOV, does anyone object to something like this?) Zaostao (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that white supremacist is any more a subjective label than calling somebody a capitalist or a feminist. While we should take care to not cause undue harm to the living subjects of our articles, the weight of reliable sources is such that describing Jared Taylor as a white supremacist is necessary. We can also include his own preferred label, 'race realist', but we shouldn't be trying to remove well sourced and notable content from articles because it viewed as negative by some people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Belief in the supremacy of one race is the stock definition of racism. Racist is a contentious label, and there's already a separate paragraph in the lede devoted to statements by sources which claim that Taylor (a living person) and the organizations he's associated with "are often described as promoting racist ideologies". Zaostao (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Science is objective. Social science is subjective. This is "more subjective" because he disputes it. We wouldn't call someone a capitalist or feminist in the lede of their article if they dispute that characterization because however many people have that opinion it's still just an opinion. We don't allow the weight of reliable sources to identify gender against the subject's wishes, we shouldn't allow them to identify ideologies against them either. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, science is both. Experimental science is objective, in that it gathers facts. Theoretical science is subjective, as it deals with taking those facts and concluding a reason for them. (See: Philosophy of Scientific Method or similar publications) This goes for social sciences just as much as any other.

The question I'd ask myself is not whether this is a violation of policy, because it clearly is not as it has been so widely reported. Instead, is it really necessary to give readers that conclusion, or would it be better to let them make up their own minds based upon the facts? Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That rests on whether the nature of American Renaissance is relevant to Taylor's article. I personally think it's relevant enough for an extra couple words, but that's just me. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is important to associate Talyor to AR (given he runs it), and it is appropriate to give context to AR since it is not a household name. But as the first sentence of that article, it shouldn't be contentious language that Taylor denies he or the work is. Later, like in the second lede paragraph to summarize his views and criticism of them, sure. But not to lead the article off with. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying this is contentious. Contenious: disputed, debatable, controversial. Does anyone who is not a white nationalist dispute the label as applied to Taylor? As far as I'm aware, labels like these are routinely used on Wikipedia, and prominently, so long as they are very well sourced, even when disputed by the bearer. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. At best it's poor writing. The lede should primarily describe what the subject is, leaving the opinions (reasons/theories/POVs) for the body. As far as order-of-importance goes, the what is the most important answer by far, and the why is usually the least important answer, thus is usually given last. At worst, its a little insulting to be led to an obvious conclusion. It's something like starting an article this way, "Darth Vader is the evil, human-supremacist leader of the Imperial military..." or some such nonsense. It's just not very formal or encyclopedic. IMHO, we shouldn't just mimic the sources, but strive to do better. Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's circular, seemingly everyone in these circles is a "white supremacist", "racist" or whatever, and so their opinions are FRINGE and not worthy of being in an encylopedia, leaving only the opinions of people who screech "racist" or other such terms non-stop being heard... This is most notably seen with quite obscure people like Jared Taylor where there's little opposition and even less admin action, but also is seen with high-profile figures such as Trump (there was talk page consensus to call him a racist at one point, which had RS just as this case has RS and would have likely gone through if there wasn't strong NPOV opposition and admin attention) and Putin (one of the editors involved in this case pushing for "white supremacist" to be included regularly states as fact things such as Putin funding "Neo-Nazi", "fascist", "racist" and other buzzwords, parties in Europe as well as outright section blanks in the lede of a world leader's article). I've only been editing in these topics for a few months but this seems to hold true for nearly every left-right article. It's just uncompromising ideologues attempting to OWN articles, and the only way to combat that seems to be by being an uncompromising ideologue yourself and making yourself as annoying and time-consuming as possible to interact with. Zaostao (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Taylor has been described outright by numerous reliable sources as being a)a white nationalist, b)a white supremacist, c)guilty of having/stating racist & supremacist viewpoints. That is *aside* from the accusations against his magazine. Taylor has denied B & C outright while stating a self-identification that is synonymous with A (to anyone who isnt a nationalist). His notability is tied to his nationist/supremacist/racist views and publishing thereof, which is why it is in the lead. The only thing that should also be there for parity is that he has rejected some of those labels. Which is basically a one-line addition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on intent rather than execution. I think we can all agree that this is a content dispute rather than a BLP vio, so is probably best worked out on the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Zaereth, to put it broadly, those who don't think the "white supremacist" bit belongs in the lead are expressly arguing that it is a BLP violation (see Masem and Zaostao above). While I personally think you're quite right, at least to this point, this is not something on which we can all agree. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well not really. Even in Masem's opening statement he does not deny that reliable sources describe him as such. The BLP violation (as he sees it) is that it is unjustifiably given prominence in the lead while the subject denies the labels. I half-agree, in that without the subjects rejection being at least mentioned, it gives the impression of unfairness (note, I didnt say neutrality) - even if its reliably sourced. If the subject was notable for reasons that were unrelated to his white nationalism activities, that would be entirely reasonable argument and I would support yanking it from the lead completely. But Taylor is primarily/in a large significant part, notable because of his views and promotion of them. And as that is a significant part of his biography it gets reflected in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

More specically, my issue is putting this negative claims/contentious labels against him as the first/second sentence of the lede. That he is viewed to have white supremancy has to be included in the lede since that appears to be a fundamental reason why he has gained notability. But because that is a libelous statement, we should not be starting the article off by describing him or implying that in any way. We start with a grounded, factual statement, and perhaps one or two additional lines that are neutral, and then it's fine to get into how his views are criticized at large. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below, I agree with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Saying that, I do dislike labelling people 'contentious label' as if that defines them. Personally I would remove the first 'white nationalist' moniker and add a qualifier about his rejection at the end:

"Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor has been described as a white nationalist, and many of the organizations he is associated with have often been described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US, however he rejects these labels."

It makes it clear (multiple times) that he/his associations are pro-white and includes his rejection of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"And as that is a significant part of his biography it gets reflected in the lead." It already is represented in the lede, it has a paragraph devoted to it and nobody here is arguing for the removal of that information, I don't think. The discussion is about the attempt to indirectly state as fact that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist by using the American Renaissance coatrack to hook on that criticism.

I proposed this above but will do so again: what about a lede such as this? Zaostao (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race-realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

• here are some refs for the race-realism description. 1, 2, 3. Zaostao (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am personally okay with the proposed lead, but I think offering "American Renaissance" without indicating its views is a great disservice to the article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fair to later in the lede mention that both Taylor's views and that of articles published AR are considered racist/white supremacist, but it should not be the first thing attached to mention of the webzine if that is not what Taylor or the webzine purport to be about. It is fair to use its own language (from the AR article "race-realist, white advocacy organization") if there is a want to describe the work more than just asserting it is a webzine at its first mention in the first/second sentence of the lead. The issue is not to ignore the press's views on Taylor or his publication, but not to ignore the contentious nature of these on a BLP article when leading it off. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To me the claim is not contentious. There is, in fact, widespread agreement on it. This seems to verge on "opinions on shape of Earth differ" territory. But hey, it's Friday! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If a person has an article in Wikipedia because they were a murderer, the lead states that they were a murderer. Ted Bundy's article states in the first sentence that he was a "serial killer, kidnapper, rapist, and necrophile." These are all negative descriptions, far more negative than "white supremacist" or "white nationalist." If Bundy had disavowed any of those labels, would we remove them from the first sentence of his article? Of course not. Jared Taylor is described, repeatedly, by reliable neutral sources, not just as a "white nationalist" but a "white supremacist" (NY TImes:"Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists", Vox, ). Why are we debating removing these terms from lead? Because Jared Taylor might be offended by them? It's ridiculous. The lead is fine as is. Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A person convicted of being a murdered is an objective quality - a legal authority has made said decision based on law and evidence, and while they are negative aspects, they are undeniable aspects; its also why in Bundy's case they are most known for. Even if Bundy professed innocence after conviction, you can't change that objective measure that he was convicted. But calling someone a white supremacist is a subjective measure, with no authority to make that distinction between who is and isn't one. In this case, the person's denial means we should not highlight a negative subjective contentious label in the first or second sentence of the lede. Later, after we've introduced who Taylor in a factual manner, we can discuss those subjective takes on his views in lede (since that's what he appears notable for). If I were Taylor and found that WP highlighted the press's words over my own statement, I would be greatly offended. I would even argue that were Taylor silent on the matter - never countering the white supremacy term, but also not self-identifying as one, we would take the same approach. We do not let the press steamroll subjective labels onto living persons. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The driving force of BLP policy is respect for the individual. Our policy on gender identity (MOS:GENDERID) for example is entirely respect-based as misgendering poses no legal risk. By arguing our articles (especially the lede) shouldn't distinguish between subjective labels the individual rejects and subjective labels the individual embraces you're saying: individuals' opinions of themselves are irrelevant to wikipedia. That is the opposite of respect for the individual and completely contrary to the spirit of BLP.

I think everyone in this conversation agrees on this in theory. The distinction, and where the disagreement lies here, is whether we should apply that policy and spirit consistently or whether we make exceptions for "bad people" like Jared Taylor - which brings to mind this passage from A Man for All Seasons. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a poor comparison. You can't compare someones personal experience of their own gender to espousing views associated with racism and being upset when people say that's racist. Also, unrelated to the issue at hand, I do notice that the spouse and children params in the infobox are unsourced and there is no mention of them in the article, if someone could either add a source or remove them that would be great. — Strongjam (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a comparison - I mentioned MOS:GENDERID here to illustrate the purpose of the BLP policy. I don't take issue with the claims of racism, which we properly attribute. I take issue with "white supremacist" which includes a largely agreed upon set of beliefs, many of which the subject claims to reject, which makes it a contentious label, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lede of the article - no good. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is in any way a BLP violation/concern. If most RS identify this person primarily as a white nationalist, and place that description front-and-center in any discussion of him (which they overwhelmingly do in this case) then so should wikipedia. His denial of that label should be noted, obviously, but article subjects are not the final authority on how their political beliefs are described. We should treat him exactly the same way that RS such as the Washington Post do. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"article subjects are not the final authority on how their political beliefs are described". No one is an authority on determining political beliefs, certainly not the press; it is not like the case of someone being charged with murder where there is a legal authority to make the assertion. It is the individual who has the highest authority on what they claim they are, even if their claim is considered bogus by the rest of the world at large. As such, it is completely wrong to let a popular opinion of the press override what a living person has said about themselves as part of the leading statements in an article as to set a negative tone for the remainder of the article. (This is even moreso when considering this is left-leaning press talking about a right-leaning person). The criticism can be included but later after establishing a neutral tone for the article.--MASEM (t) 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is even moreso when considering this is left-leaning press talking about a right-leaning person Fox News: "Jared Taylor, who is white and calls himself a "race realist," believes that whites and Asians are more intelligent than Hispanics and blacks." While Mr. Taylor may not know what white supremacy is, his views are the text book definition. — Strongjam (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no place where Fox News calls Taylor a "white supremacist" or the like. And it is OR to say that a person's beliefs are "a textbook definition", particularly for a subjective term. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, you say "It is the individual who has the highest authority on what they claim they are, even if their claim is considered bogus by the rest of the world." But why should this be? Either inside Wikipedia or in the "real world?" I honestly don't get this claim. I think they're one source (reliable or not) among many. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, BLP rests on respect for the individual. When considering a highly contentious label that has no objective determination, the person's interest should have the highest priority to respect their personal political (or whatever) beliefs. It's not ignoring the "real world" just that we're taking a neutral, clinical tone in setting up the article before addressing the criticism of the person that is prevalent in sources. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But then we're back to my sort of original question. There is always a point at which BLP yields to strong sourcing, no? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no amount of sourcing that should cause the popular opinion of a person to override the claims made by that person when it comes to subjective labels when leading off the article. They should be documented but should absolutely not be one of the first things a reader sees about the BLP. I would even argue further that the lede sentence or two of any BLP should contain no contentious, subjective labels regardless of how uniform the media uses the terms, because that affects the tone of the article in a negative light before establishing non-contentious facts. Once you have set facts in place, then its a free-for-all to describe the BLP with the attributions made by the press at large within the lede (as would be appropriate here for Taylor). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe lookup the definition and explain to me how it is a subjective term. — Strongjam (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The term may have a definition, but to assess a person as ascribing to it or having beliefs that fall within it is highly subjective. There is no authority to say who is or isn't a "white supremacist". There are very few absolutes when it comes to describing social labels. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. According to wikipedia the definition of white supremacy is:

a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people.

I haven't seen in any of Taylor's writings or interviews the suggestion that whites should "rule" over non-whites in any way. If such sources exist, please present them. He openly advocates white separatism (a label I wouldn't object to) but I don't see him advocating white supremacy despite being labeled as a white supremacist in sources.

Either white supremacy is an ideology with an objective definition and we have no sources to support his meeting that definition (which suggest he's not a white supremacist and it shouldn't be in the lede) - or it's a subjective label and sources describing him as a white supremacist should be followed simply because they assign that label (in which case it should be excluded from the lede because it's subjective.) Either way it shouldn't be there, at least unattributed. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, there is reasonable attribution to those claiming he is a white supremacist. A statement in the lede "His views are widely considered by journalists and academics as racist and fall within white supremacy.", to me, is an acceptable, attributed statement given the numerous sources in the body that are used in the Views section. This itself is not the contentious fact (that he is considered by press/academics in this way).

What is not' acceptable is leading off with that statement before describing non-controversial, basic facts in a neutral voice in the few couple of sentences of the lede, which is the situation I started this thread with. Nor should his own counter-point to those claims be ignored just because he's not the mainstream view. BLP requires us to treat subjects neutrally and with respect, not with how the press wants us to treat them. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely. Again, I think a lede such as

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race realism." He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist as well as falling within white supremacy by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

would hit all bases as it establishes as neutrally as possible in the first sentence of the lede his notability (promoting white nationalism = white nationalist, which is probably one of the most common labels for the subject) and also describes his own ideology by using his own words. Then some basic, factual statements listing the organizations he's associated with before concluding with what he has been often called by other people. Zaostao (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also agree completely. There's no question he's seen as a white supremacist so the article must include that. Your proposed lede resolves all of my BLP objections - big improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Better would be to describe his work in his own terms, then to state that others call it something else. Editors need to be careful not to describe that "something else" in a loaded, contentious manner. There has been discussion above about "contentious", possibly by people who have not looked at WP:LABEL, which is pretty specific about that word. WP:LABEL is a section of the Manual of Style that urges editors to be very careful when using words such as "racist", "bigot" and others. IMHO, words like "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are from the same family as all the contentious labels that are enumerated in the MOS. Lou Sander (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree Lou Sander, but let's not forget that WP:LABEL advises that such words ". . . are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The proscription is neither absolute nor without nuance. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting that advice. But even the Views section, which isn't overtly objectionable, doesn't bother with in-text attribution. If it did, it would say, for each cited accusation of white supremecism, for example, "Mr. X, of publication Y, says this fellow espouses white supremecism", followed by a reference to where he says it. Instead, it just lists a bunch of generic sources, and "others", followed by a list of references. I don't see any "others" in the list of references. A good article wouldn't be so cavalier about its use of contentious material. Lou Sander (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There's certainly room for improvement. No argument there! Dumuzid (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: The problem with this article is its injudicious use of contentious labels, as described in WP:LABEL. Starting with the Views section, and continuing into the introduction, Taylor is repeatedly labeled as a racist, a white nationalist, and a white supremacist. Except for parts of the Reception section, these words are not supported by the in-text attribution that editors are strongly encouraged to use with contentious language. Not only is the in-text attribution usually missing, but the contentious terms are said to be used "often", when "sometimes" might be better and more judicious, and by "others" when no other citations or in-text attribution are provided. The effect of the present situation seems to be one of unencyclopedic name-calling from an anti-Taylor point of view.

I believe the article would be fixed by paying very careful attention to in-text attribution in the body, and by putting the legitimate criticisms into the latter part of the introduction. After the body of the article has been cleaned up, the lead could read:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer and editor best known for his support of what he describes as "race realism". He is the founder and editor of the American Renaissance magazine, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and those of the organizations mentioned above, have been described as white supremacist and white nationalist by civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US. Taylor has strongly objected to those descriptions.

The last paragraph of the proposed lead needs to accurately and precisely reflect what is said in the cleaned-up body of the article. Provided that the clean-up is carefully done, the article and the summary will say what needs to be said, without appearing to be especially pro- or anti-Taylor. Lou Sander (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• If someone's views "have been described as white supremacist and white nationalist by civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US" (strong majority view), then he should be described as a "white nationalist and supremacist writer" in the first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that runs counter to WP:BLP, although maybe you think Jared Taylor is the same as Vladimir Putin and "does not deserve a decent BLP page"? Zaostao (talk)

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but the point for me is that when reliable sources overwhelmingly report something, WP:BLP is no longer an issue. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of the subject is mentioned in the lede quite clearly and no one is arguing against its inclusion, the BLPvio is labeling a living person with a contentious label based on what sources (no matter how many or how reliable) state without first neutrally introducing the subject. Above you said you were okay with the lede I proposed, but thought mentioning American Renaissance without listing its views was a great disservice to the article, so how about we describe American Renaissance's views? Zaostao (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a self-described "race-realist, white advocacy organization". He is also the president of the New Century Foundation, as well as a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

If you have any specific objections to this lede, please state them. Cheers. Zaostao (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to your suggest because it downplays the man's racism, white supremacism and white nationalism. It incorrectly lends credence to the pseudoscience of "race realism". It gives the magazine its own platform for self-definition rather than telling the reader about the extremely negative assessment by scholars. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there will be objections. It is hardly NPOV to lead with a 'self-described' perspective in an instance of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a very valid point, and I would agree with removing the self-described part of the description of AR, just calling it out as a "political webzine" or something that neutrally explains what the work is. Later, the self-description can be pitted against the third-party views. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In this scholarly source, Taylor is classified as a white supremacist. Same with this scholarly source, and also this one. Other scholarly sources classify him as a white nationalist.[5][6] These labels are supported by very high quality sources, satisfying our BLP concerns. Taylor's denial of these labels is only worth a brief mention. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading the language not only at the linked points but other sections before and after, none of those source are attempting to present the subjects they are writing in a neutral light - they are POV-ladened works. (Just because they are by academics does not meant they are free of bias). It's clear Taylor is considered by a large number of writers as this, but it would be completely improper per BLP and per NPOV to take their stance as "word of god" as some are asking here. Neutrality and impartiality are key policy points here, and that's why we shouldn't be leading off with labeling that is controversial and contentious and libelous even if a majority of sources make this claim for a BLP. This is a core part of being a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a faulty understanding of requirements for neutrality & NPOV in this context. The most important issue here is following high quality sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Nomoskedasticity here; NPOV does not mean "even though Jared Taylor is referred to as a white nationalist and white supremacist by reliable secondary sources, we should remove those terms because they are not neutral." That's essentially the boiled-down argument being pushed by MASEM (and others before him); it's all a transparent effort to sanitize the lead of Taylor's page and make him seem more acceptable. For what purpose, I don't know; I mean, either you're into his white supremacy advocacy or you're not - changing the lead of his Wikipedia page isn't going to make a difference either way. I continue to affirm that the lead is fine as is - factual, sourced, and neutral. Rockypedia (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is an issue with tone: if you lead off with implying he is a white supremacist (even with attribution to sources), you've tainted the article's tone since most everyone would agree that white supremacy is a negative. It's like starting Bill Cosby's article with him being an accused sexual criminal. It's true that he's accused and it is a fact/claim that must be included somewhere as it is a significant factor of his live, but now you've tainted the article. Taylor's lede has to mention the stance the press claim he is on white supremacy and other issues, no question (there's no attempt being asked to scrub that completely) but it absolutely should not start off the article and impact the tone. But in the same manner, we should also avoid elevating his views either. The first one or two sentence should start with non-controversial facts (who is he, what he writes for, what organizations he is a part of), and then the lede can dig into the controversy over the views. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no tone. There is only how the subject is described by reliable sources, and what he's notable for. He's notable for promoting white supremacist and white nationalist views. I personally think the lead already leans very far towards your POV by not including "white supremacist" as a direct description of Taylor, being that that's how he's described by various sources. You said at the start that you're "looking to get additional opinions on this" - you've gotten them, but you refuse to accept that your view of Taylor is not the one most reliable sources see. How many opinions do you need? You continue to belabor the same incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy in spite of many people pointing out why you're wrong. It's not productive anymore. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

At WP:TONE we are instructed to follow the wording style used by reliable sources. You'll note in my links that our reliable sources state plainly that Taylor is a racist, a white supremacist and a white nationalist. Thus your complaint about "tone" falls flat. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the tone as described at WP:IMPARTIAL, not the tone of reading level as that essay describes. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That guideline talks about a "heated dispute" which I'm not seeing. All the best sources say that Taylor is a white supremacist/racist/nationalist. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of libel in American law is "defamatory falsehood." There is nothing false about describing an admitted white nationalist and white supremacist as either or both of those two things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I too think this definition of "neutrality" is incorrect. To quote WP:NPOV, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Neutrality does not mean "we take statements made by the subject of an article at face value." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is The New York Times describing Taylor explicitly as a white supremacist in the lede of an article about Donald Trump and white supremacy: Until recently, Jared Taylor, long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, had never supported a presidential candidate. [7] If this be libel, let Jared Taylor sue the NYT first and prove his case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP overrides any "majority view" from the press. Per BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (emphasis mine). Regardless of his denial or lack thereof, starting off an article on a BLP by calling the negative subjective labels is a violation of BLP, even if the bulk of reliable sources think it is true. Moreso, with his specific denial of these, that's more a driver to avoid leading off the article on these points. Just because other sources have made the claim does not mean we should approach it in the same way. We're an encyclopedia, not news articles. The other fact that NPOV is important is both WP:YESPOV (given that he has disputed the claims) and WP:IMPARTIAL (leading off an article with negative labels is not impartial in the first place). --MASEM (t) 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

When the first sentence of an article in The New York Times describes a person as a white supremacist, we are not "the primary vehicle" for spreading claims about that person. The subject's "privacy" is not at issue here, because they are a very public advocate for the positions they espouse. There is nothing "private" about Jared Taylor's white supremacist beliefs. He has voluntarily become "one of the country's most prominent white supremacists," in the words of one of the most respected journalistic publications on Earth. Claiming that calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "sensationalist" is simply ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, as long as Taylor has not self-identified or in this case, has actually countered the claim he is a white supremacist, that takes priority for us over any other newspaper sources, even the NYT. The press is not an authority on who and who isn't a white supremacist. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be the case on Masempedia, but here on Wikipedia, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So Masem, are you proposing that we remove Holocaust denier from the lede of David Irving? We declare him in the lede to be a Holocaust denier despite his vehement denials of that fact, up to and including filing a libel lawsuit over the term. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources declare Irving to be a Holocaust denier, so we call him one in that article. Your logic would demand that we remove it there. Is that your belief? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

To expand on this point, David Irving declares himself to be a historian. Are we required to put that word in the lede of his biography because he believes it and claims it, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources view his "scholarship" as entirely discredited and his "history" to be little more than Nazi propaganda and apologia? I believe we are not. Similarly, Jared Taylor is not the sole arbiter of what his viewpoints and political positions amount to in mainstream society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Irving, I would not include neither "Holocaust denier" or "historian" in the lede sentence, instead only noting him to be an author on military and political history of WWII. Then in the second sentence, we can mention that the English courts have determined him to be a "Holocaust denier" (an objective label), and that he instead claims to be a "historian", a claim countered by his critics. The same information, just changing the location to neutralize the tone. The point is not about removing well-sourced opinion for Taylor here, just located it to later in the lede to make a neutral tone. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The established consensus on that page disagrees with you. Your interpretation of BLP — that we are required to ignore how reliable sources describe people and only use self-applied descriptors — appears to be a novel one without support in prior precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

On that talk page, I see a lot of unresolved and continued debates over that line, and no conclusive end to the discussion, and the lede there remains a contentious point. Also, as there, here no one is arguing for removal of information. I want to simply have the labeling pushed down a sentence or two in the lede, so that the point is not ignored, but just not affecting the initial tone that the lede sentence presents. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus on this very page established that the material in question is not prohibited by BLP and there are no serious attempts to remove it. To quote Nick-D, This has been discussed lots of times in the past (including, from memory, in a formal RFC) and the consensus has been that 1) Irving is commonly described as a "Holocaust denier" in both academic/specialist works and the general media (there have been significant searches of references in the past) and 2) as a result, it's the appropriate term for Wikipedia to use to describe him. This topic gets raised about once a month or so, with the consensus on the talk page consistently being that the description remains appropriate. WP:BLP doesn't mean that we shouldn't describe people in a negative way if that's how they're commonly described.

I invite you to provide contrary precedent — an RFC, BLPN discussion or ArbCom decision which interprets BLP to mean that we use only self-descriptions of a person in the lede of their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives on Irving's talk page and do not see any type of formal RFC with a proper close, as Nick-D thinks there might have been. (There's one in May 2016 but that was after the previous link, and that was short-circuited closed as no consensus). Meaning that I think there needs to be an at-large RFC on such assertions in the first sentences of ledes for these types of articles.

And as for precedent, the development of MOS:GENDERID is the prime example of letting self-identification override sources. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think self-identification should override all sources in describing a person's ideology, beliefs, occupation, etc. I would invite you to open an RFC which would establish that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparing Holocaust denial to gender identity is ridiculous on so many levels. One's gender is not something that can be evaluated by peers, unlike academic writings... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:BLPCAT requires self-identification to place a LP in a contentious category, which should implicitely carry to the prose. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because categories and infoboxes do not allow for context to be added. Unlike in prose. Try reading the very first sentence of the the stuff your quoting. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the policy, because that's not what it says — it says caution should be used with categories that have negative connotations, but it does not prohibit such categorization. Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Nobody "self-identifies" as a criminal, but that category certainly exists and is full of living people who are criminals. We have a Category:White supremacists and it is full of living people who are white supremacists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, to quote WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Do you consider white supremacism to be Mr. Taylor's religion or sexual orientation? Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, your position also strikes me as a misuse of a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thus, it seems to me that primary sources may be used to establish that Mr. Taylor says he is not a 'white supremacist,' but it would violate the policy to use that primary source to say that he actually isn't a "white supremacist," that's the sort of conclusion for which a secondary source is really necessary. But I'm wrong plenty, as I like to say. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor's rebuttal is from third-party, secondary sources, not a primary one, as referenced in the Views section. Yes, there is concern if it was a SELFPUB issue, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, SELFPUB and PRIMARY are certainly related, but they are not identical. A quote from Mr. Taylor, even though it appears in the Wall Street Journal or on BBC News, is still a primary source, as is an interview with him. Please see WP:PRIMARY, where I find footnote 3 helpful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

However, BLP heavily realizes on verifiable self-identification over anything else (frequently repeated in WT:BLP and on these pages). That's implicit in the language and why we have a BLP policy in the first place, as well as what should be common sense for neutrality and impartialness in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, you're going to have to show me something that backs that up. As far as I can tell, you're talking about Masempedia. Again, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." You'd think self-identification would get a mention if it had the importance you claim. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to return back to a key point as the whole self-identification side is a whole red herring here, because no one is asking for self-ID to erase negative criticism here. In the case of the Taylor, for the lede to not mention that he is considered a white supremacist by the media at large (despite his self-non-identification) would be failing UNDUE of reliable sources. There is zero issue with this type of statement in the lede. The point again is to avoid placing the contentious subjective label in the first sentence of the article per MOS:BLPLEAD. We have to get to this issue of white supremacy for Taylor sooner than later, but the first sentence should not be that place, but instead should stay neutral. Once you have that out of the way, then its fair game to say he's considered by the multiple negative labels by the press at large. That's it, that's all that's at issue here is the ordering to be more impartial without changing what content is there. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that's perfectly fair, but per WP:BLPLEAD, we should include why the person is notable. Would you concede that for a person who is notable mainly for white supremacism, that belongs in the first paragraph or perhaps even the first sentence? Even if you would dispute that is the situation here, such a case might exist, no? Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a category error to state that it is somehow "neutral" to specifically avoid identifying a well-known white supremacist as such in the lede. It is, in fact, the opposite of neutral. To quote the Neutral Point of View policy, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It is without question that the overwhelmingly most-significant view of reliable sources about Jared Taylor is that he is a white supremacist. Thus, NPOV policy requires that we identify him as such immediately — his advocacy for white supremacy is the only reason reliable sources have paid any attention to him at all. To avoid using those words privileges Taylor's viewpoint and gives his tiny-minority view disproportionate prominence over the overwhelming majority viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor is already described as a white supremacist by multiple reliable sources. I propose we add "white supremacist" to the description of him in the first part of the first sentence; that way Masem's concerns with AmRen carrying the same phrase should be alleviated. Rockypedia (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The skewed views advocated here and elsewhere by Masem makes me wonder why people bother responding. He keeps trying to wiki-lawyer his desired non-neutral viewpoint into the encyclopedia, hoping that the victims get blamed for Gamergate, David Irving the Holocaust denier is validated as a legitimate historian, and the racist Jared Taylor is presented as righteous. I don't think discussion such as this is a good use of the community's time and energy. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• No personal attacks please, especially when you start off by saying it's a waste of time responding to the person you're attacking. Masem has not made any edits to Jared Taylor that I'm aware of. Zaostao (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, NorthBySouthBaranof and some others. The subject should be more definitely described as a supremacist writer in intro. This is per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL Lou Sander (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:LABEL, certain wordings should be "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is the case here. Also, this is not a label, but description. For example, word "myth" could be avoided when used in its informal sense, but it must be used for an actual myth. Same is here. There is such thing as white supremacist writer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a white supremacist writer, but they don't say things such as "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Also, I feel my above question to you that you didn't answer is very pertinent here, is Jared Taylor the same in your mind as Vladimir Putin and "does not deserve a decent BLP page"? Zaostao (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that he is an Asian supremacist? As about your second question, you asked it already on various pages for the fourth time. Well, I am happy that you like my joke. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• A joke pertaining to knowingly violating a specific and inviolable wikipedia policy that is also the same policy that this discussion is about? Maybe all other statements you're making in this BLP discussion are a joke? You seem very dedicated to this Putler "joke" in any case. [8][9] Zaostao (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As the definition of 'supremacist' goes, he certainly holds views that deserve that label. The difference is he denies explicitly a supremacist label to himself, and unrelated reliable sources concentrate on the 'white supremacist' aspect. So its not something you could source easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against the inclusions of those descriptions, the discussion is about putting them in their correct place to respect BLP and NPOV.

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism and what he describes as "race realism". He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor's views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

This lede includes mentions of white nationalism, racism and white supremacy, as well as what the subject describes their own ideology as. The rest is simple, factual statements. If you have any specific objections, please list them. Zaostao (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Race realism" is a redirect to scientific racism. There are no significant disagreements here. What's the point of this discussion? My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like another example of bias deeming everything in these circles as racism or white supremacism, a redirect to racialism would be much more accurate. Zaostao (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• NPOV would require that we write proportionate to the weight of reliable sources, and that would use the phrase scientific racism rather than the white supremacist-designed euphemism which is used by literally nobody else. You seem determined to paint a picture of Jared Taylor as just another nice guy with interesting beliefs, rather than, as The New York Times described him, "one of the country's most prominent white supremacists." We must adhere to the weight of reliable sources, which in this case is clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Jared Taylor, a self-proclaimed 'race realist'" – The Guardian
• "Jared Taylor, a U.S. author and proponent of what he calls 'racial realism,'" – The Wall Street Journal
• "Jared Taylor, a self-identified 'race realist'" – The Atlantic
• "Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a 'race realist white advocacy group,'" – NBC News
• "Taylor is the author of “White Identity” and the New York Times best-seller “Paved with Good Intentions.” Taylor calls himself a 'race realist'" – WKYT
• "Jared Taylor, a 'race realist' who publishes American Renaissance" – Los Angeles Times
• Even one of the "scholarly sources" used to support the white supremacist description thinks Jared Taylor's "race realism" is notable enough to mention. Zaostao (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not lend credence to the pseudoscience of race realism when we tell the reader that Taylor peddles the nonsense. Rather, we must say that he lays a false scientific claim for his beliefs. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you are going against RS instead opting for what we "must say", do you have a policy that supports the exclusion of "race realism" like BLP and NPOV are invokable for not stating "Samuel Jared Taylor is a racist/supremacist/bad guy" in the first sentence of the lede? Zaostao (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

First, your list of reliable sources all distance themselves from the term "race realist" through attribution, by saying that Taylor uses that term to describe himself. That is, the sources do not use the term in passing, as their own formulation.

Second, we have a guideline at WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE which instructs us to avoid giving credence to a pseudoscientific topic, for instance by presenting it as a legitimate field of study. Thus we will not tell the reader that he calls himself a "race realist" without at the same time diminishing in an appropriate manner the validity of the notion of race realism. Perhaps we can say that he calls himself a race realist, which is a pseudoscientific explanation for racism. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And my proposed lede used the same attribution that RS used, it doesn't "give credence" to Taylor's beliefs, it's simply just states what he describes his ideology as. Anyway, first it was not enough reliable sources to include race realism, and now once that is met it's something altogether different? Zaostao (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed lead section fails to immediately tell the reader that "race realism" is pseudoscience. A wikilink gives it credence, for those who do not chase down the link. We should comply with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and state explicitly and immediately that "race realism" is a pseudoscientific form of racism. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes that Mr. Taylor's self-identification shouldn't be mentioned; it's just that it doesn't trump the weight of reliable sources when describing him. The way Mr. Taylor defines himself may not be the way the RSes define him. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I included "known for promoting white nationalism" first and before "race realism" in my proposed lede, as 'promoting white nationalism'/'white nationalist'/similar seems to be the most common description of Taylor's notability, and white nationalism is not as much of a contentious label as "racist" or "white supremacist"—especially if you take it in the same way as black nationalism, Basque nationalism, Irish nationalism or such. Zaostao (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, according to your encyclopedia source [10] Taylor is indeed a "race realist", but it means that he is a racist ("remarks by Taylor indicate his racist stance"). So once again, I do not understand what's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That was someone else's source, but yes, I've never argued for removing people's opinion of the subject as a racist/supremacist, I've simply argued for putting those statements in their correct place to stay in line with BLP. I think Jared Taylor and all other living persons "deserve a decent BLP page" you see, so maybe that is where your misunderstanding is coming from. Zaostao (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere does our BLP policy say that a person deserves a "decent" biography. Bad people can be called bad people if the consensus of high quality sources support the conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet 100% here; Zaostao seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia has a policy where any negative connotation in the lead of a BLP must be whitewashed in an effort to make the subject seem "more decent"; it does not. Rockypedia (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're all in agreement with MVBW that Jared Taylor and Vladimir Putin do "not deserve a decent BLP page". It's good to have confirmation and I look forward to one of you inserting "also known as Putler" into Putin's article soon, but I'd like you to read WP:BLP and respond to the arguments presented here so far instead of just saying that living persons who you deem to be "bad people" don't deserve articles falling in line with WP:BLP. Zaostao (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself by imagining for me a stance that I have not espoused. Again, the BLP policy does not support your notion that everybody deserves a "decent" biography. Fair and balanced, yes, but in this case fair and balanced will be largely negative. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You were agreeing with MVBM's "deserve a decent BLP page" Putin attack and you used the words "bad people", not me. I'm not sure how else one is supposed to take this other than you saying that living persons who you deem to be "bad people" do not "deserve a decent BLP page". You've also personally attacked @Masem: "The skewed views advocated here and elsewhere by Masem makes me wonder why people bother responding. He keeps trying to wiki-lawyer his desired non-neutral viewpoint into the encyclopedia," and stated that you "don't think discussion such as this is a good use of the community's time and energy."

I'm wondering why you don't recuse yourself from this discussion to be honest. You have shown a clear bias against the subject in discussion, questioned the point of having a BLP discussion about this altogether despite the fact that this discussion was recommended to be had at AN3, made personal attacks against the creator of this section and have agreed with a supposed "joke" that some living persons do not deserve to have their articles protected under wikipedia policy. Zaostao (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Recusal? Really? Is there some policy of which I am unaware? Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You are still fooling yourself about my participation at Talk:Vladimir Putin, where I had nothing to do with the issue presented in your links. And I don't see any reason why I should recuse myself here, especially when it looks like a few people are trying to whitewash this guy's biography. I am not in favor of a whitewash. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the use of "whitewash" in this context. With BLPs we should always present the subject as neutrally as policy allows.

• That's not to say we exclude relevant information - no one has suggested we exclude information from Taylor's biography
• That's also not to say we present the subject's ideas in as favorable as light as possible - their evaluation must reflect RS

But introducing the subject as neutrally as sources allow, whoever the subject, is BLP policy, not a whitewash; at least that's my understanding of it. Am I incorrect? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Lambden, I am certainly no expert, but I would not say we introduce the subject "as neutrally as sources allow," since that implies you are making a value judgment independent of the sources, and using the RSes as outer bounds, so to speak. My take would be that we present the subject as the weight of RSes presents him/her/it, without regard to whether that fits our personal idea of "neutrality." As I've said above, in the Wikipedia context, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias," per WP:NPOV. As I read the guidelines, we are to strive for neutrality with regard to reporting the sources, but not as to the favorability or lack thereof of a subject. But reasonable minds may differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that is a fundamental disagreement and a misunderstanding as I see it. We make value judgements independent of sources all the time - with respect to what information to include (just because something is verifiable it does not mean it should be included) and what sources to use. Without them we could never judge a source as partisan for example, and the "Bias in sources" directive would be pointless. But it exists as part of WP:RS There are in fact multiple instances in which policy requires us to evaluate neutrality. Claiming we're incapable in this one instance when we're required in many others is inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as inconsistent at all. Of course we have to identify reliable sources, and bias is certainly a concern there. For me what information to include is certainly informed by the sources. But identifying reliable sources and writing articles are different activities with different demands. We're operating at different levels of abstraction. The fundamental difference here, as I see it, is that I believe we have to proceed from the sources first, and if I may summarize your position, it's that we should create our own vision of 'neutrality' and then write it up 'as sources allow.' That's a perfectly reasonable way to operate; it's just not my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. Dumuzid (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not distinct and not created. The same notion of neutrality that identifies partisan bias tells us "Jared Taylor is an American" is more neutral than "Jared Taylor is a white supremacist." This is needlessly straying into the philosophical. The existence of neutrality is not in question; policy requires it. The question is: whether BLPs deserve maximum neutrality. If the answer is yes then the introductory sentence of a BLP lede should not include a description the subject disputes in Wikipedia's voice, save objective fact (e.g. the subject is a convicted murderer.)

I feel we've reached the point of irreconcilable differences. Would an RfC on the subject article's talk page be appropriate at this time? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So just to clarify, in a hypothetical situation, even if all the RSes in all the universe were to identify someone as a "white supremacist," it would be wrong to use that descriptor in the lead if the subject disputed it? Dumuzid (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If that was all they were ever described as, there'd most likely be a reason for that term—maybe they killed a bunch of non-whites while reciting Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf?—but it's almost never justified other than as a buzzword and is intrinsically contentious. Zaostao (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize if I have not indented far enough or joined at the proper segment; but I have been following this discussion with great interest, having never before heard of the article's subject. I can now say I know a little more about Mr. Taylor than I did prior to this debate and find the point of views expressed here fascinating on both sides. I have no dog in this fight, but merely a question regarding a similar subject whom I did know by name simply because the notoriety was more mainstream: David Duke. When I visited his page I noticed in his lede the same wording as Taylor's and what many are calling "labels" to describe him; which are obviously based on a consensus from reliable sources. However, in the same lede, to balance out said "labels", a contributor has placed the line: "Duke describes himself as a "racial realist," ... In Taylor's article, this balance is placed in a separate segment under "Views". I wonder: would it appease the arguments currently going on here if a simple line be moved from the "Views" section similar to the Duke article and placed in the lede that states the same self description? I don't think it would take anything away from what is there already; and may even serve to suffice both sides in their reasoning for current debate. All in all, from what I have seen from interview footage of Mr. Taylor, I think he would be highly amused that so much attention has been given to him, regardless the reason. Maineartists (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I would note David Duke's page does not identify him as a white supremacist (the contested label in Taylor's article) - rather as a white nationalist, a label he (just as Taylor) embraces. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor hasn't embraced the white nationalism association, but it's less contentious than supremacist and also a general term. I don't think David Duke's article is in any way a good example of an article consistent with BLP and NPOV, but the layout idea is alright.

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor describes himself as a "race realist" who believes the races are not equal.^[1][2][3][4] His views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

This lede contains white nationalism, racism, white supremacism, and a brief line which states what the subject describes their ideology is. The rest is simple, unbiased statements of fact. Let the reader decide for themselves. Zaostao (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I have no emotional connection either way in this argument or description of "labels", what exactly is wrong with the lede that Zaostao just posted above here? If the article itself is written openly and sourced correctly, the terms and "labels" will be revealed and proven one way or another. I see no fault in the wording presented above as it covers both sides equally. But I am sure, judging by the length and heat of this discussion, I may be wrong. Still, I hope for editorial reasons and Wikipedia conformity, there can be an agreement reached for others to learn from and build their own ledes. Maineartists (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not wrong, and it's a valid question, but I'll tell you why it's not acceptable - it's an attempt to frame Taylor for being known as a "writer" rather than as a "white nationalist." He's clearly notable for being a white nationlist or white supremacist, depending on which sources you go to, and if it weren't for the white nationalism there's no way he'd even have an article on Wikipedia; his notability as a writer is practically nil. Self-published, etc. That lead also eliminates the description of American Renaissance, a little-known white supremacist publication, and without that description, unless you click on the wikilink, you have no idea what that webzine is. It's part of Zaostao's multiple attempts to put a more positive public face on his hero, Jared Taylor - he's been edit-warring over details in this article since at least July 11 of this year, and every single one of his 87 edits to date have been designed with the goal of making Taylor more palatable or more mainstream to any reader that doesn't already know who he is, despite the well-sourced material that was already here. Reliable secondary sources are what determines the content of this lead, not one pro-Taylor editor pushing his POV. Rockypedia (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Again.

Second, nothing that myself or Zaostao or others agreeing on this point is attempting to push a POV. No one is calling for elimination of negative material on Taylor, only to contest the forcing of sourced but subjective information into the first sentence over any non-contentious information, which does have the appearance of POV pushing. BLP uses the language "dispassionate" tone, and taking the subjective determination of the public at large (whom are not an authority to objectively determine someone's subjective viewpoint) as one of the first "facts" presented in the article is absolutely not a "dispassionate" tone. Note at the same time that Taylor's own subjective views should not take priorty over non-contentious information as well.

We don't do the inverted situation, where for a person that is widely and highly regarded and/or respected, that we fill the first sentence of the lede with sourceable praise towards that person. You can spot check GA and FAs of bios (both BLP and of those deceased) and while there's a few cases I found (mostly soldiers that are notable for receiving the Purple Heart or similar), their ledes nearly all fall into the same pattern: the first sentence or two establishes the person's nationality, their career(s) or what role/function they performed in society, and any notable works associated with them. These are all non-contentious or objective facts about these people. None of these that I spot checked used subjective praise language until after these founding points were made, generally as the last part of the lede. This is the dispassionate tone that BLP requires. Just as we aren't giving these highly-respected people "good articles" by not putting subjective praise for them up front, we shouldn't be striving to push "bad articles" that highlight subjective criticism on poorly-respected people. As Zaostao's version does, it gives a uncontested statement of his nationality, profession, and what associated works he is known form, and then properly diverges into the strong criticism of his views and that he is associated with racism and white supremacy. The same information currently in the article and its current lede, but reordered to respect the dispassionate tone that BLP requires. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rockypedia and Masem! That is most helpful! I am learning new things each day with this topic's discussion! Fascinating. I totally understand now. Good to know. Peace out! Maineartists (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Last version by Zaostao does not properly summarize quoted sources. It tells: "Taylor describes himself as a "race realist" who believes the races are not equal". However, quoted source (#4) tells about "a fringe group of racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists". Further, it is entirely unclear what "race realist" means. According to RS, this is simply a racist (see discussion above), rather than "white nationalist" as this version is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times source at no point explicitly classifies Taylor as part of the quoted "fringe group". Implies, yes, but BLP requires a more exmore explicit statement. And the wikilink on the term explains what it means; the lede is not the point to get technical on the differences. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here is the source, and it tells he is a racist:

There is the a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race-realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.”

My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't identify him as part of the "fringe group". That's SYNTH to combine the lead and that point. Also note that that s an op-ed piece, so it's a claim, not anything close to "fact". --MASEM (t) 02:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a clearly-labeled opinion piece - with op-ed and opinion in the URL. Not usable for statements of fact in a BLP.I second (third?) Zaostao's updated lede. Is it possible to request an official close? Agreement between the two sides here seems unlikely. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If that piece is an opinion column, there are many others that aren't. See, for example:

* This source says that Taylor is a "well-known white supremacist/separatist."

* This source refers to him as "the white nationalist Jared Taylor"

* This source labels him "Jared Taylor (white nationalist)" in a heading.

* This source includes him in a list of white nationalists ("many white contemporary white nationalists, including Jared Taylor...")

I could go on with these (there are many more) - but you get the point: these are the highest-possible quality sources (academic monographs, written by experts on the subject, published by reputable academic presses such as Cambridge and Yale). And they have zero qualms about labeling Taylor a white nationalist, right off the top, and treating that as pretty much the central, dominant, salient fact that readers should know about him. Wikipedia can (and should) treat him the same way. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The first source prefaces "white supremacist" with "According to the SPLC..." I don't object to stating in our article that the SPLC describes him as a white supremacist - Zaostao's proposed lede is even more critical than that: His views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

The rest use "white nationalist" - which I have no objection to. So it appears, if these are the highest-possible quality sources as you say, white nationalist is the consensus academic description. With that in mind can you give your opinion on Zaostao's proposed lede above? (which opens with Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the first sentence of the lede that we started out with, and which Masem started this section to discuss, ("Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication.") is actually perfectly consistent with what the highest-quality RS say about Taylor. The lede is fine as-is, and Zaostao's version tiptoes around that reality by describing him as a writer who "promotes" white nationalism, rather than as a white nationalist first and foremost (which again, is how the best available RS describe him). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of claims about "best sources", but little or no in-text attribution of their views, as specified in WP:LABEL. In fact, there is quite a bit of reluctance to follow the clear and reasonable guidance of WP:LABEL, and a strong hostility to reasonable suggestions by Masem and others. Lou Sander (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: The lede as is says he founded a "white supremacist" publications. The sources you just posted and described as the highest-possible quality sources do not call him a white supremacist. Let me restate that so everyone's clear: they do not call him a white supremacist. One relays the SPLC's label of "white supremacist", the rest describe him as a "white nationalist." From that complete absence of support for the label "white supremacist" in the highest-possible quality sources and the sensitivity BLP policy demands we show to subjects you conclude it would be best if the first sentence of our lede associates him with white supremacy - is that correct? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that's obviously not what I said. The text I'm defending calls American Renaissance a white supremacist pub, rather than applying the label to Taylor himself, and that assertion is just as well documented [11][12][13][14][15] - heck, our own article on AR does the same thing, with sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at my proposed lede it clearly states what Taylor's views and the organisations he's associated with are said to promote. James J. Lambden already presented this to you: His views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US. And here are more sources for the race realism description:

• "Jared Taylor, a self-proclaimed 'race realist'" – The Guardian
• "Jared Taylor, a U.S. author and proponent of what he calls 'racial realism,'" – The Wall Street Journal
• "Jared Taylor, a self-identified 'race realist'" – The Atlantic
• "journalist and advocate for “racial realism,” Jared Taylor" – The Huffington Post
• "Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a 'race realist white advocacy group,'" – NBC News
• "Taylor is the author of “White Identity” and the New York Times best-seller “Paved with Good Intentions.” Taylor calls himself a 'race realist'" – WKYT
• "Jared Taylor, a 'race realist' who publishes American Renaissance" – Los Angeles Times
• "Taylor, the president of the New Century Foundation, which publishes American Renaissance, a journal that he founded and edits, promotes his version of "realism" in recognizing the racial differences between peoples" – Marcia Graham Synnott

You're joining in late in the discussion and rehashing something we've already discussed at length. Nobody is denying that RS state that American Renaissance is a "white supremacist publication", this whole discussion is about presenting what RS think of the subject neutrally and with a dispassionate tone. Hooking on criticism of an organization the subject is associated with in the first sentence of the subject's lede in an attempt to present that criticism as fact is neither neutral nor dispassionate.

• For the umpteenth time, WP:COATRACK is not a policy against mentioning a white supremacist publication in Jared Taylor's lead. It is a policy against creating an entire article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. Since that is clearly not the case here, it's clearly not applicable. Over and over again, you've cited a policy that's not even close to applying to this page in an effort to change the lead to make Jared Taylor look more favorable. How many times do other editors have to call you on this before you'll stop belaboring the same incorrect basis for your proposed edits? Or are you simply hoping that if you repeat something untrue a hundred times, people will eventually believe it? Rockypedia (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COATRACK fully, or at least the full lede. "It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. The nominal subject is treated as if it were an empty coat-rack, and is obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there." American Renaissance is a "tangential subject", and you are wishing to use it as a "hook". A description of AR, and other organisations the subject is associated with, can be given—as they are in my proposed lede—after, and only after if you want to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, the subject is introduced with a neutral, dispassionate tone. Zaostao (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that sentence rests on your claim that in the description of AmRen, there's "irrelevant, undue or biased material there". Describing AmRen as a "white supremacist publication" is not irrelevant, undue, or biased. It's apparent from this discussion that most other editors don't have a problem with it and agree with that assessment. Therefore, without meeting any of those three conditions, WP:COATRACK does not apply. Rockypedia (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevent info that is being forced to attribute a negative subjective label onto this person in the first sentence, creating "guilt by association" which drastically affects the tone of the lede. As I started this, I understand the need to ascribe some type of info onto the relatively unknown AmRen publication for context clarity, but that ascribing should not introduce a subjective term into the first sentences of the lede, otherwise you are using that hook to further explain the publication as a method to push a subjective label on the person. That's why there's a clear COATRACK issue, even if the rest of the article will include subjective aspects. It's fine in the prose and latter parts of the lede because you've got space for context to explain whom the claims of white supremacy are coming from and that he and the publication do not call themselves that, but you don't have that space in the first few sentences when we are trying to establish who Taylor is in a neutral, dispassionate way. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PeterTheFourth that "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are not subjective labels, any more than "capitalist" or "feminist" or "liberal" are. It's also clearly not irrelevant info, so your argument falls apart on those two straw men alone. Rockypedia (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those are subjective terms, however, people are much more likely to self-identify with those terms (they are far less negative in connotation), which means that a self-identified capitalist can be described as such in the lead without any BLP concerns. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Got a WP:RS for that opinion of yours? Rockypedia (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I could ask the same for the RS to support PeterTheFourth's or your claim those aren't subjective labels, but that would be silly and useless. We are talking about editorial discretion aspect here - how we properly summarize sources - and those decisions are not based on RSes but on editorial choices and consensus on how to handle the RSes. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You could ask, but the answer is, most editors agree that those aren't subjective labels. You disagree. Life goes on. Rockypedia (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Even the sources you presented yourself favor the white nationalism association with Taylor for his notability, which is what my proposed lede also represents. James J. Lambden cited this to you also: Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism. Zaostao (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You should check some of the sources you list there more carefully. This one notes Taylor's claim to be a race realist (in quotation marks) but calls him a white nationalist both in the article's headline and in its text. Your "Atlantic" link is just a link to the Guardian story that you'd already linked two lines above (ie, not actually an article in the Atlantic). And don't you think it might be significant that in most cases these pubs are noting that Taylor calls himself a race realist (using quote marks)? This isn't evidence that these pubs actually think the label is correct/factual. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering both sets of sources (both Zaostao's and Fyddlestix), none of these appear to be taking a dispassionate, neutral view on Taylor or his webzine or the organization he is part of, it should point to the contentious nature of these statements, and why they should not be shoehorned into the lede sentence or two, where there is no room for context, but later discussion in the lede, after a neutral, dispassionate opening sentence, is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". All these sources qualify as RS and tell basically the same: this man is a racist writer or a self-declared "race realist" which means racist. Telling something different (as suggested by Zaostao below) would be actually against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, for me, I have no issue that once you've set up the non-contested information about whom Taylor is, the lede then have at it to include the popular opinion of his views as well as his counter statements where there is more space to provide context. My argument remains that assigning a subjective label in the opening sentences of a lede (whether from popular opinion or from self-statement) is not neutral, dispassionate writing demandeded by BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, for everyone but you, and a couple of editors that have a history of white-washing white supremacists' pages, "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are not subjective labels, any more than "liberal" or "capitalist" or "feminist" are. PeterTheFourth stated a version of that earlier, I agree with it, and your entire argument rests on that straw man. Rockypedia (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The established guideline WP:LABEL says differently. All those terms are value-added labels, and are to be avoided or only included with in-line attribution with in-line attribution if they are contentious. The lede sentences is not the place to be putting in statement that require in-line attribution. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Nowhere in WP:LABEL does it mention "white supremacist", "white nationalist", "liberal", "capitalist" or "feminist". Even if it did, "in-line attribution" would only apply if you gave equal weight to the statements that "Jared Taylor is a white nationalist" and "Taylor is a race realist", since he's the only one using that term to describe himself, and it that case, we would have to give attribution to the second term, not the first, as the first is well-sourced. Your last sentence - well, you just made that up out of thin air. Your arguments here are downright misleading and make me question whether you have as little interest in editing this article as you say you do. Any reasonable person can read those guidelines and see that you're way off. Rockypedia (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually it does, see "racist" in the linked policy. Then see white supremacism here on wikipedia: "racist ideology". Since this is pertaining to NPOV as well as BLP, the burden is on you to show that "white supremacist" isn't a value-laded label if you want to include it without proper in-line attribution. Zaostao (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, "any reasonable person", "most editors agree" are non-arguments. See WP:WEASEL. Again, anybody can make the statements you're making: "you're wrong", "most editors agree", "any reasonable person can see" etc. You may as well say you just don't like the proposed change and save yourself the hassle of typing a few extra words.

Also, since Masem has made no edits to Jared Taylor, you have no leg to stand on in claiming that they have some great interest in the article. see WP:NPA. Zaostao (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As Zaostao noted, just because the words "white supremacist" are not listed a LABEL doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Our policies and guidelines are meant to be applied descriptively, not prescriptively. "White supremacist" is a label with contentious meaning (it is a negative term in society today), so it would fall under LABEL. And as Zaostao said, I have zero interest in editing Taylor's article, but I am fully concerned about forcing a negative label on a person's bio before the non-contentious facts have been presented and affecting the article's tone. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the new holes in both of your arguments: "racist" does not equal "white supremacist". "Contentious" does not equal "negative term" (or vice versa). You're both really reaching, by equating words that aren't the same thing. I'm done here, because we're going in circles - people point out why you're wrong, they describe it in detail, and you both come up with some other straw man to keep the conversation going. It's over. Consensus is against you. Edit the lead against this consensus, and it will be reverted. Thank you and good day. Rockypedia (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if you don't take "white supremacist" as a contentious term on its own (which makes no sense since it is a more extreme form of racism), the fact he has denied the term makes it contentious in this use at minimum. No, contentious doesn't mean negative - you'd just as much avoid "greatest" or "best" regardless of how many sources would agree with that to since that still remains a subjective term. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your ""racist" does not equal "white supremacist"" claim? Again, the burden is on you in this case. Zaostao (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As protection ends

Since full protection will end on this article tomorrow, I think it's important to gauge intentions. I get a strong sense that people who want to change the first sentence intend to go ahead and do this, perhaps as soon as they are able. Am I right? @Zaostao:? @Masem:? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've noted, I've zero interest in the article itself, outside of seeing the issue on the first few sentences. I have zero plans to edit the article at all. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's the whole lede that is in discussion, and there hasn't been a good argument made not to change it to this:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American writer who is known for promoting white nationalism. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, the New Century Foundation. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute. He is also a board member and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Taylor describes himself as a "race realist" who believes the races are not equal. His views, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as racist and white supremacist by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

Again, it includes mention of white nationalism, racism, white supremacism and what the subject describes their own ideology as. Follows the traditional format of: name, DOB, nationality, profession, notability. Then some unbiased statements of fact before stating what the subject describes their ideology as and what other people describe their ideology as. Let the reader decide. Zaostao (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In case it gets lost in the mess above: I support this update. Clearer, and better reflective of sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Support, agreeing with James J. Lambden, above. The proposed edit is fair and in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. Those opposed, IMHO, have failed to make sensible or convincing arguments for their points of view. They seem to ignore the arguments and opinions of the WP:MOS and other editors, and often resort to name calling and ridicule instead of rationality. Lou Sander (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so that's four supporting this change citing improvements to NPOV and BLP. How many are disagreeing and what are they citing? Zaostao (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So you plan to do an edit along these lines, then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If Zaostao goes ahead and changes the article in the way that he suggests then he will be edit warring. There is no consensus for that kind of non-neutral wording. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% agree. Zaostao's ludicrous claim is that "there hasn't been a good argument made not to change it to this" - what that really means is "Zaostao doesn't care what arguments were made against that proposed summary, he doesn't like them and will ignore them." It's been argued to death in the above paragraphs, and many good reasons have been pointed out as to why that proposed summary runs blatantly contrary to Wikipedia policy. The lead is fine as is; there's no good reason that's been put forth here to change it, and there's only two users who insist that it must be changed, while over a dozen have argued against it. You will not change that summary without consensus, you don't have consensus and if you try to push it through via edit warring you'll be blocked (again). Pretty straightforward. Rockypedia (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm. "Zaostao's ludicrous claim is that 'there hasn't been a good argument made not to change it to this' - what that really means is 'Zaostao doesn't care what arguments were made against that proposed summary, he doesn't like them and will ignore them,'" followed by "The lead is fine as is; there's no good reason that's been put forth here to change it."

This is pretty much a repeat of your previous "you're wrong" argument; no policies, guidelines or reasoning used, just "i'm right, you're wrong." There's also more than two users disagreeing with you here, but is numeracy required when you've got arguments such as "you're wrong"? Zaostao (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think most people agree there was no significant BLP violation on this page. Everything else, such as new version of intro, should be discussed on article talk page. It seems that new version of Intro (above) has no consensus for inclusion right now. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• The "consensus" seems to be that Jared Taylor is to be called a WN/WS, as often as possible and as prominently as possible, because a tiny subset of name-calling editors feel (not think) that that's what should be done. They don't want to hear about or discuss, let alone actually act on, WP:LABEL and in-text attribution, or anything else that violates their feelings. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's good to have your take on what does and doesn't constitute a BLPvio, although I have to ask again if this statement is a "joke" about WP:BLP like your previous "joke" that Vladimir Putin "does not deserve a decent BLP page. Let it be ridiculous." one? Zaostao (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we leave Putin (and people's past comments in other discussions) out of this, please? That has a whole lot of nothing to do with what's actually being discussed here. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's consensus here that there's no significant BLP violation on the page. I recommend the lead stays as is. Rockypedia (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How is an editor making a supposed "joke" about knowingly violating WP:BLP irrelevant to them stating what their opinion of a BLP violation is or isn't? Do you have intimate knowledge that the editor isn't still "joking" about BLP now? Maybe this editor agrees with my proposed lede which respects NPOV and BLP, but are jokingly disagreeing as they want to let this article "be ridiculous" too? Zaostao (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: Your sarcasm is understandable (although maybe inadvisable) but I disagree with your conclusion. Quoting an admin with experience enforcing BLP policy:

the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the contentious material, meaning that it should not appear in the article unless/until there is a clear consensus (link)

Consensus is not a vote, and arguments are weighted by their validity with regard to site policy. Arguments that have no grounding in policy, or that fly in the face of policy, are generally discounted. If (hypothetically) 12 people argue in favor of a blatant BLP violation while only 2 people defend the proper application of the policy, the 2 people can, and should, carry the day (link)

I don't see where that burden's been satisfied here. Many of the "for" !votes don't even address BLP issues, some comments don't address policy at all - discounting the "arguments that have no grounding in policy" we're a very long way from the "clear consensus" required. If it were to be added back once removed:

as in any contentious BLP issue, the burden is on those wishing to add or restore contentious material to demonstrate that it complies with all relevant policies. If the material is added back without demonstrable consensus, or if there is edit-warring to re-insert the material without complying with these policies, then I or another admin is likely to intervene to uphold WP:BLP (link)

James J. Lambden (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the current lead contains contentious material, and in my view, the people wishing to see "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" removed from the lead aren't following policy - they're trying to make Taylor's article more appealing to the mainstream and/or clean up his image on his Wikipedia page. The people stating why those terms should be included are following policy, and they've explained why in exhaustive detail above. In other words, the quotes you've included support the lead remaining as is. Rockypedia (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read Zaostao's proposed lede (above) which contains "white nationalist/nationalism." No one has wished to see that phrase removed. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: It seems that he has ran away from the discussion, and there's nowhere near strong enough of consensus to include something with BLP implications. Zaostao (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A compelling argument doesn't cease being compelling if the opining editor chooses to contribute elsewhere while you beat the noticeboard to death, trying to wear down any opposition. Everything in a biography has "BLP implications", but with Jared Taylor, the term "white nationalist" is sufficiently well supported by high quality sources. The BLP guideline is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the repeated arguments addressing the inclusion of "white nationalist" or "white nationalism" in the lede - that's simply not up for debate. Every version of lede under consideration features it prominently. The issue is "white supremacist", which fewer sources use than do not. Can you speak to that? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Yeah, the white nationalism is a total red herring, nobody is arguing against it. Zaostao (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"I don't think the current lead contains contentious material." What you think is irrelevant. I may think the earth is flat, that doesn't mean that the Earth article should reflect my thoughts. You need to provide some RS that "white supremacist" isn't a contentious term if you want to include it in a BLP without proper in-line attribution.

And, as James J. Lambden has said, white nationalism is still in the first sentence of the lede. It's actually there even more forcefully as it states that's what the subject is notable for. Zaostao (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Noel MacNeal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't believe that this is factual:

"For the show Eureeka's Castle, MacNeal implanted some of the vocal chords from the throat of Kenneth Lasek (b 1959 of Parlin) into his (MacNeal's) throat for his character he was playing on Eureeka's Castle. MacNeal did this so his laugh on Eureeka's Castle would sound just like Lasek's laugh sounds (producers thought that the laugh sound would mesh well with the show but they obviously couldn't ask Lasek to be on the show). This was the first time that any part of Kenneth Lasek ever left the Northeastern United States (albeit only parts of his vocal chords)"

No references, no substantiation, sounds very outlandish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.104.110 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything on a search proving that is true (not that I expected to), so I have removed it. Looks to have been added by a throwaway vandal account. HMS Werewolf (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Faye Resnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article mentions that Ronald Goldman was Nicole Brown's boyfriend. I know of no evidence to verify that statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.78.141 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither one of them is a living person, indicating this discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lauren Hutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good lord, I don't know where to start. I guess the first place is a BLP where the article states that het partner "squandered" $13M of her money, sourced to an apparent auto biography of Hutton's. There is a ridiculous "Quotes" section which I removed, however I suspect it will be added back. Even if those quotes were sourced, they don't belong in the article with that format. This BLP needs some TLC.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The partner (Williamson) died in the 1990s, so he doesn't fall under WP:BLP. Still, I agree we should try to get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Anita Krajnc case The truck driver's comment-swearing at Anita- should be removed as this may encourage people to socially shame the driver, make threats, personal attacks, affect his livelihood etc.

The sentence regarding the pig farmer being charged and being fined is not related to Anita's Case, and creates an attack page.

●"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "

●"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

●"Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should . . ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.86.13 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be possible to replace every occurrence of the truck driver's name with "the truck driver", and every occurrence of the farmer's name with "the farmer" or something like that. Whether this is appropriate when the farmer is responsible for filing the case that the article is about, and the truck driver is absolutely central to the incident concerned, and both of them are named by dozens of reliable sources, I am not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

agree. I replaced his name with 'truck driver' --he is not famous and is named multiple times to disparage him. Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fior the record I disagree. CBC News names the guy - who is not just incidental to the "Anita Krajnc case" - and Wikipedians come along to scrub out any mention of his name because of what we imagine he wants. We are here to inform and serve our readers not provide value added services to the subjects of our articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree. This was reported in the media and it exists all over. Wikipedia is not the whole universe, or even its center. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk that it was added to Wikipedia to facilitate harassing the driver. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an exceedingly broad justification for removing reliably sourced material. At issue here is how much harder it would be to "harass the driver" but for Wikipedia and I'd say hardly any difference given that the name wasn't uncovered by a Wikipedian sleuthing obscure sources. CBC News is one of the country's biggest media outlets if not the biggest. What does it do to Wikipedia's neutrality reputation if Wikipedia is notorious for removing info about persons who want "disparaging" or "harassing" info removed?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case highly motivated activists selected his truck as a target and brought along cameras and PR people in order to make a national political statement. That is deliberate politicized targetted harassment desired 100% for publicity of a non-celebrity and Wikipedia should not assist it.Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"desired 100% for publicity of a non-celebrity"? You are not going to assign even 1% for animal rights activism? You aren't the least bothered that Wikipedia suppresses stories the media does not because Wikipedia tries to tamp down negative "publicity"?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Animal rights activists indeed staged a publicity event, complete with photographers and news men. They targeted a completely private individual who was driving the truck that they just happened to choose. The driver's role in history is too minimal for us to invade his privacy any further. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So CBC News is complicit in this "targeting"? We're not invading his privacy by providing the same established facts that the media did. You think it's appropriate to substitute their editorial judgment for yours? Is Wikipedia this guy's public relations manager? If this guy's role is truly minimal then why did you have to anonymize his name in the article not once but several times?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

the demonstrators wanted maximum publicity and they also are warning away their "enemies" (who drive trucks carrying animals) with hostile publicity. The driver does not have PR staff but the demonstrators did--looks like one person with a bottle of water and a team of PR people. Wikipedia is permanent and is the #6 most visited website in the world, so the PR team scored big. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Julio A. Cabral-Corrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, was directed over here from help desk (Wikipedia:Help_desk#Harm.2Fdue_weight_in_BLP_with_limited_sourcing.3F); I'm actually not sure there's a "violation" but I'd be grateful for input on whether this would be one/how best to handle.

At Talk:Julio_A._Cabral-Corrada#Campaign_finance_issue we're discussing a potential harm issue in a BLP with limited sourcing. AfD closed as no consensus (full disclosure, I was a delete ivoter), but the search for sources turned up a U.S. Congressional campaign finance issue not previously included in the entry. Now we have four reliable secondary sources on campaign finance issue, and only six on all the rest of the subject's life, three of which come from the same outlet (and all ten are pretty limited coverage, nothing truly in-depth). Another editor has since added the campaign finance thing to the entry; entry's creator deleted those edits. I'm at a loss, concerned about harm to the subject (I don't think we have enough other coverage to give properly limited weight to the campaign finance thing) but also about the risk of misleading readers and harming the encyclopedia with an entry that excludes 40% of the available sources and includes (cherrypicks?) only the favorable ones.

Thanks for any advice (particularly from anyone who can read both the Spanish and English sources, although advice on policy very welcome too!) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrei Marga, a Romanian politician who has a clean WP:NPOL pass as a past holder of a position in the national cabinet, recently nominated his own article for WP:AFD on the grounds that he didn't want one. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Marga.) Needless to say, he didn't succeed as WP:BIODEL only applies to low-profile individuals whose notability is debatable rather than unequivocal — but I still want to request a check for WP:BLP compliance nonetheless (I'm particularly unimpressed by the bullet-pointed and unsourced lists of awards, but I'm not enough of an expert in Romanian politics — nor can I read the Romanian language sources to determine whether they properly verify the content — to judge whether there are also BLP problems in the actual body prose as well.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Stressing his early Communist Party membership and activity is about as useless as starting an article about someone born in Germany before 1940 by stressing their Nazi party membership and activity. Perhaps this is worth trimming or removing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone born in Germany before 1940 was a Nazi. Just ask Pope Benedict.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Being foreign minister and minister of education meetsnotability of politicians. And peoples' early political identification is always important. Benedict btw was too young to join the Nazi Party but joined the Hitler youth. The parallel is not that valid. Membership in the Nazi Party technically disqualified people from attaining positions in government, universities, etc., while membership in Communist or affiliated parties did not. 33% of the working population in Romania were members of the CP, while only 7% of Germans joined the Nazi Party. While it was difficult to join the Nazi Party, it was practically mandatory to join the Communist Party. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What percent of the working population are former leaders of their alma mater's Communist Students Union? I'm looking at this bio's lede and wondering what the problem is... sounds like an impressive guy.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you can be President (and founder) of the League of Women Voters (an organization of massive importance for women's rights) for an entire U.S. state, during the era of the most significance of the organization, and still be challenged for notability. Go have fun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Foulke Morrisson while also keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. MPS1992 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you cannot be U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Education and not be notable. And surely had Hillary Clinton founded a state league for women voters, it would be in her article. TFD (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I would think so. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stubb05 is again removing content with multiple reliable primary and secondary sources from the article. In these last days there was a discussion in the talk page, and the edits on the article were blocked, waiting for constructive suggestions and proposals from that particular user, and others who opposed my edits. No constuctive suggestion was made on the talk page, except for one source, which I removed. I re-added the sourced content again, after waiting 2-3 days. The user mentioned above is removing it again without giving specific reasons for removing entire paragraphs with reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&action=history

This is the content I'm trying to add with the respective sources:

--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who might be interested: @Dsprc:, @Srich32977: , @SPECIFICO: , @The Four Deuces: . --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This does not appear to involve any interpretation of WP:BLP policy as such, and belongs nly on the article talk page unless such a policy argument arises otherwise. I commend you to read WP:CONSENSUS in the meantime. Collect (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thnx for the response. A user opened a discussion in the talk page because two users opposed one source. I removed the source from the contet I was adding. 2-3 days passed and no other proposal and/or suggestion was made. What does that mean? Can I re-add the sourced content, whithout being reverted from a user who doesnt want secondary sources displayed in that article? --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: The user mentioned above contends that those sources I'm using are non RS. This is the policy--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC) issue.

The noticeboard for actual discussions about sources is WP:RS/N. I note that one must carefully separate a person's actual current views from his discussions of views held in the past being presented in an essay - though I have not read enough of the journal to opine on this. I read enough of the Jacobs article/diatribe to suggest that it is not a reliable source for anything more than Mr. Jacobs' personal opinions about Woods, for example. Checking further, opinion sources such as AlterNet are not usable for claims of fact made in opinion columns either. Please be careful in using opinion sources. Collect (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone take a look at Edward J. Zajac. ThomasNDT blanked the page and tried to explain a privacy violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Zajac. I am not sure if page protection, editor blocking or a speedy deletion is appropriate. I have restored the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth opening up another AfD? Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A copyright violation notice was recently put on this WP article Alexander_Berzin_(scholar) and nearly all of the text deleted since it was allegedly largely based on the subject's own professional website's biography. The subject has since added the following notice to the foot of his website's biography:

"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

This may be viewed here: http://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin

The copyright violation allegation is thus invalidated and the issue resolved. The pending deletion notice may therefore please be removed urgently since it may be prejudicing the subject's professional activities.

The deleted text may also please be reinstated for further improvement and being made to read less like an advertisement, as has also been alleged. Many thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

since it was allegedly largely based on the subject's own professional website's biography Nothing "allegedly" at all. The article was copied. I'm very concerned that basic facts regarding article content cannot be agreed upon.

Because WP:CP has a backlog and the copyright entry hasn't appeared there yet, I contacted an admin who works on the backlog: User_talk:Diannaa#WP:CP_backlogged_problem_-_entry_I.27d_like_to_get_addressed. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Remind me again, why would we reinstate an autobiography? Guy (Help!) 16:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

UK Rapper sway wiki page keeps getting deleted after i've uploaded it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe you want Sway (musician) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But I'm a business partner and family member and I have been editing his wiki for the past week or so now and a lot has been deleted. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

From taking a quick look it was removed because it was unsourced. Wikipedia requires information to have a reference to a reliable source. (see WP:V and WP:RS) the best advice I can give is look at the info you want to include and find a reliable source that can be used to reference it. For example - details about his background could be sourced to an interview in a music magazine. Otherwise unsourced information will generally be removed straight away in a biography of a living person. This is not specific to Sway, unsourced information is generally removed very quickly from biographies. Another option is posting the material you want to include on the talkpage and asking for help to see what can be used/sourced from experienced editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, That makes sense. Thank you. How can I go back to edit the page as it says its semi protected and only registered users can use it, as I am a registered user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Use this link to view your edit and request specific additions on the talk page here. Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Adore Delano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article on Adore Delano repeatedly switches between gender pronouns "He/him" and "she/her". Inconsistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:a82:3d00:2106:3fc8:5c7f:92dd (talk • contribs)

Seems similar to Conchita Wurst - masculine pronouns when referring to the actor and feminine ones when referring to the character. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In the section for Artistic Career, it was stated that Kartika never received formal art education. According to this website, it is untrue. She did receive formal education in Indonesia and Rome Italy.

http://www.affandi.org/collection/familys/kartika-affandi Kartika Affandi was born on November, 27th, 1934 in Jakarta. She is Affandi’s daughter from his first wife, Maryati. Her educational journey started from Taman Dewasa in Taman Siswa Jakarta, then she studied art at the University of Tagore Shantiniketan India. She also learnt about sculpting at the Polytechnic School of Art London. In 1952, Saptohoedojo married her and they have eight children. In 1957, she joined a painting exhibition with other woman painters in Yogyakarta for the first time. In 1980 she went to Vienna, Austria to study at the Academy of Fine Arts majoring in Mechanical Preservation and Restoration of art objects, then she continued studying at ICCROM (International Center of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property) in Rome Italy. Nowadays, Kartika’s paintings and sculptures are also exhibited in Affandi Museum, in the third Gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley.theresia (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information above is false but the source you provided does not seem reliable. Rather than keeping the claim that she has never received an education on the page, I will remove until an RS can verify. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Came across this on RC. A couple of IPs seem very interested in the article. I reverted at first because it seemed like drive-by content removal, but I honestly know nothing about the subject, so someone more familiar might want to take a look. TimothyJosephWood 13:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This article mostly deals with living people. On one hand most of them are bad people who don't deserve respect. On the other the tone of the article seems a bit unprofessional for WP. As I mentioned on its talk page a lot of it is quoted from newspaper opinion pieces, with or without quotation marks. Again I am not suggested remove any of the criticisms, just make the language more professional and neutral.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be an enthusiastic editor with a bad ear for the English language. It will probably settle down over time.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The title of the article Sepehr salimi should be corrected to Sepehr Salimi Sepehr salimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by حامد صوفی (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Salix alba (talk): 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The article on Sam Harris is rife with libelous claims. While including criticism that has been leveled against a controversial figure can certainly be appropriate, the criticism included consists nearly entirely of straw mans and is, by far, the main emphasis of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see the single thing you objected to on the article, what are the others? We need specifics. Regarding that criticism you objected to, I agree that as currently presented it is unbalanced and presents a BLP issue. The critics are making inferences that Sam Harris supports the mass-murder of people of faith. If the actual complete context of his quote is far different, then it is unbalanced to only give the warped critical perspective. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone should advise Mylescoen12 that saying that the article is guilty of libel could be interpreted as violating WP:NLT: 'It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention'. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any guidance about a reference containing a possible home address of the subject. I was looking at the references to a British MP, and notices one of the external references had their home address. Should we remove such references, and if so should revisions with the link be deleted? --Salix alba (talk): 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If the home address is some manner of obvious public knowledge, there is no need to purge a link that contains it, though it should not be given directly on Wikipedia regardless. If the home address is non-public, or was only made public due to some kind of doxxing offence, then all effort should be made to avoid it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Here the address could be readily found by through searching official records. So I guess no need to purge. --Salix alba (talk): 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

At Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, Unnecessary thread here, an objection is being made to the inclusion of testimony about, or from the survivors and wounded in terror incidents. The testimony comes from interviews given to a reliable newspaper regarding that event. The editor in question cites WP:BLP. It is not unusual for such data to be included on articles dealing with Jewish victims, without WP:BLP being invoked. It is cited as a reason why Palestinian survivors and wounded shouldn't be mentioned, as 'insignificant',

Expert neutral input on the issue would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It feels a bit wrong to me per WP:BLPNAME, but I don't think it's a BLP violation per se. Regardless of context, I think it would be the best practice to describe the victims without proper names where possible. But I am wrong about a great deal. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Its not a 'violation' as such, the key parts of BLPNAME bolded: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". So has it been widely disseminate yes/no, and by removing it does the article suffer in any real form? "Dave McDaverson spoke to the BBC" vs "A victim of the bombing spoke to the BBC" etc. Most times having their name adds nothing so the presumption of privacy is foremost. In some cases the persons identity may be relevant - it would depend on context. this would seem to be unnecessary. Although since the victims are dead since 1994, I wouldnt even say this is a BLP issue. The surviving family members should not be named ("So and so's wife/son/etc spoke to blah") should suffice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The editors deleting material are not just removing the names -- they're removing the details about victims and their injuries. The victims could be described without their names -- I don't object to that, though I also don't mind inclusion -- but wholesale removal isn't justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I just took a closer look, I have no problem with the list of victims name being in - if thats the convention for Israeli and Palestinian atrocity articles (it seems ghoulish tbh), but the surviving victims should definitely have their names removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Mr. Does Duty End. If I had the right magic wand, I would make the lists of proper names no longer a feature of these articles. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hang on. Are you saying policy requires that a person who identifies himself, and speaks to the mainstream media for an article, cannot be named? Where is it written that a person who gives his consent to an interview cannot be named in Wikipedia articles concerning the event s/he was involved in? Apply that reading and I can think only that there is a massive abuse I n thousands of articles that is not being fixed (except for the Palestinians) Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the other commenters here are all in the same ballpark, but I'll only speak for myself. I think they can be named, I'm just not sure it's optimal. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As per Dumuzid. My first post says I dont think it is strictly a violation. BLPNAME is best practice in this regard and strongly says we should not name non-notable people unless their name has been widely disseminated and adds to the context in some way. The surviving victims injuries can all be easily described without their names. Even the 8 year old who survived because his father died sheltering him can easily be written in prose without naming him directly. Its not necessary, so the BLP advises us we should not do it. If you want to line up more articles where this would take affect, feel free. Unless the context changes significantly I doubt my/our opinions will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. Unfortunately, Nishidani is misstating my position. --Wiking (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this in practice. You are all advising the following rewrite:

Lions' Gate stabbings under Victims

The dead were Aharon Benita, 21, and Nehemia Lavie, 41, who attempted to come to the couple's rescue.Adele BanitaHis wife and her small son were injured, AdeleShe was wounded seriously with stab wounds. Visiting Mrs. Benita her in hospital along with Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan, etc Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly. --Wiking (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit clunky, but it's more what I would trend toward personally. I would actually remove the entire "victims" section there as redundant. Also, the article should settle on a transliteration of Aharon/Aaron. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said below, several hundred wiki articles have a victim list. I've always been against that, preferring narrative, but I doubt one could ever get consensus for banning them. If that does come about, it would find no objection from me-Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Meaning we have both learnt a lesson. Rather than excising the data when you reverted with the edit summary listing wounded is not customary in this type of articles, see talk page, and suggesting people shot and paralyzed 'are not notable', which is what stuck in my craw, you had the option of keeping the details of the wounded, but substituting their respective names with 'One', 'the son of Suleiman' etc. I will wait for further comments a day, and if the judgement is unchallenged will apply it over a dozen relevant articles.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I thought you would understand that 'not notable' in WP context does not mean 'insignificant'; I certainly did not mean to belittle innocent people's suffering. --Wiking (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise non-notable victims' names (whether living or dead, and if named/interviewed by the press) is not a strict BLP issue (though privacy issues are to be kept in mind), but more an issue that runs against the level of detail and also the concept of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If these people aren't notable and their name only needed to be mentioned once, it becomes noise in the rest of the article, so best to omit and overall summarize. However, if it were the case that a victim had a role in trying to end the crisis, it should be kept but keeping the name as part of the narrative explaining the events, and not called out separately in describing the wounded/fatalities. (eg if in the event "John Smith had been seen wrestling with the attacker but was then fatally stabbed...", then describing the aftermath "There were four deaths, including Smith.") --MASEM (t) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree but I can name a hundred articles just in the I/P area where victims' names are listed. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is breached in the creation of these articles every other week, but the practice at AfDs is generally to keep them. I've always argued for deletion but this place works by consensus, and that rarely is compatible with a strict reading of the rules.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It wouldnt surprise me in the least there are hundreds of articles with similar lists. If you brought them here you would likely get the same response. Unless there is something specifically contextual (see Masem's good example of this) that requires them, living people should be left out per BLPNAME (but it is not prohibited to include them), and dead ones are not a BLP issue (but may be an undue one). I suspect you would get a different answer on I/P talk pages, however the people who respond here are less invested in the area and generally more concerned with the BLP than political conflicts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the input.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedians,

There seems to be debate over how the Wikipedia:BLP policies on groups and individuals apply to Crash Override Network. This seems to be a very contentious topic so please take a look: Talk:Crash_Override_Network#Consensus_regarding_Chat_Logs WhisperToMe (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See also this RSN discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Brad J. Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor [17] has added, twice (first diff here: [18]) content that seems merely designed to promote the subject. I reverted the first time, and after the editor re-added it, I tagged the article for needing more sources and being promotional; the editor just removed the tags without doing anything about them, so I have replaced the tags and warned the editor (here: [19]). More eyes to watch for violations on the article a good idea. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Flagging this article as needing some eyes and advice. Seasick Steve was the subject of a new, unauthorised biography in June which alleged that he'd made some serious lies about his age, name, life story and career - it's gotten a newsblog review at the Guardian today, and a couple of editors have been updating the article to flatly reflect this biographer's version of events, in Wikipedia's voice, overwriting the previous, apparently-false content.

I'm assuming that a book and a newsblog aren't enough to overturn stronger sources on a BLP - any guidance on what tipping point we should be waiting for would be appreciated. --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion on the article talk page would be welcome, so far as I'm concerned. What I'm not sure about is why older sources should necessarily be considered "stronger" sources. It seems to me that, where there are conflicting claims, we simply say "A claims X, but B claims Y" and leave questions of "truth" up to the readers. Of course, we also need to make sure that the supposed "claims" have, in fact, actually been "claimed" by anyone, and are not simply assumptions that have found their way into print and been repeated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Melanie_Chandra

Erroneous birth year of 1986 CONTINUOUSLY inserted. CONTINUOUS deletion of IMDB citing.

Correct birth year is 1984. ^[1]

IMDB Biographical Information is based on PUBLIC RECORDS, PRINTED PUBLICATION or OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

BillieReed (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

IMDB says 1984, but The Economic Times says she was 27 years old in 2013.^[2] IMDB is often considered an unacceptable source although there is no clear consensus. Search WP:RSN and you will find dozens of discussions. The Economic Times on the other hand is a reliable source. So I would not accept the 1984 date without better sourcing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This RS source says she was 29 as of November 2015. She could not have been born in 1984, and imbd is not an RS. Until and unless we have an RS on her birthdate, we should leave it out entirely per WP:BLP. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)