Talk:Jared Taylor

Corrections to Taylor entry

ON GENETIC INTERESTS

This portion belongs in Works and Views, not in the introduction. As written, it gave a slanted impression. The changes put Taylor’s comments in context.

Old version:

In January 2005, Taylor in reviewing a book by Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, agreed with Salter that an Englishman would be better off resisting the immigration of two hypothetical Bantu immigrants, than he would be to rescue one of his own children from drowning.

New version:

In January 2005, in reviewing a book by Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, Taylor agreed with Salter that from a genetic point of view an Englishman would be better off resisting the immigration of two hypothetical Bantu immigrants, than he would be to rescue one of his own children from drowning. Taylor also noted this was an “extreme” conclusion.

WHITE SEPARATIST

The source cited calls Taylor a “self-described” white separatist, but gives no source. An exhaustive search of Taylor’s writing does not turn up a single occasion in which Taylor calls himself a white separatist. This term should be removed.

HOLOCAUST DENIAL

The section is completely inappropriate. Taylor has written millions of words about race and immigration, whereas this entire section is based on a single, ambiguous sentence he wrote in reply to what he apparently thought was a private correspondent.

Views on Interracial Relationships

Wikipedia guidelines state: “Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.” There are no sources for Taylor’s alleged affiair with a Japanese woman, and rumors have no place in an encyclopedia. In an earlier discussion page, Taylor himself flatly denied the rumor and challenged anyone to produce evidence. None was forthcoming.

Furthermore, the Taylor article quoted later actually refers to the high level of attractiveness of both men and women. To leave out the men gives a false impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuppertwo (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources which say that Taylor either is or calls himself a white separatist. These two are probably the best I found in a few minutes of searching: [1][2]   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't realized that the version I had reverted to yesterday and on March 29 had the Akisada rumor still in it. As you can see in my edit summary on March 29, I agree with you that it is much too spurious to be mentioned here. As for the rest of the things, I will look at them all more clearly when I have some more free time. See here for a bit of background info on the Holocaust denial dispute. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Those quotes are not "deceptive"

Calling them such, with no explanation, removing them from the article, then reverting a re-addition with no edit comment is more or less vandalism. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are manifestly deceptive. No honest person can read the footnoted article and conclude otherwise. To wit, he is claimed to comment on the attractiveness of Japanese with two quotes:

• Saying they have "a high average level of attractiveness". However, he clearly attributes this opinion (and only in reference to women) to "many Westerners", not himself. It is the worst kind of quoting out of context when someone says, "X says/claims/thinks/believes Y", and quote them as saying "Y".

• The "waddling colossi" comment. This is in a paragraph having nothing to do with attractiveness, but the homogeneity of the Japanese population, with the example that even fat Japanese are not all that fat.

Blatant misrepresentation is particularly egregious in the case of a WP:BLP.

Moreover, his article has almost nothing to do with beauty, so whatever comments about it he does make can not be considered a significant opinion of his. His "works and views" should emphasize his main, important beliefs, not side examples in service of a broader point.

Also, this user reverted my merging of the "Views on interracial relationships" into the "Works on views" section. No explanation was provided why this one view needs its own section separated from the rest of his views.

I'm reverting, of course. Tyuia (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"But there is a different and more pleasant homogeneity that goes beyond racial traits" comes right before the "waddling collosi" sentence. This seems to me to obviously be about attractiveness. What does "pleasant" mean to you in that context?

The "high level" comment, in context, seems to me to indicate that he counts himself among the many who think so. In the interest of being careful, I agree it should be left out of this article.

One of his "important beliefs" is that Asians are superior to Caucasians. Beauty is certainly an aspect of that belief.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning on this talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What "pleasant" means is a matter of interpretation-- in a BLP it's especially important to not go beyond what the sources actually say. (He could, e.g., mean it's the homogeneity itself that is plesant.) I'm also pretty sure Taylor does not regard Asians as superior to Caucasians.

The "high level" comment goes in hand with his comment that Japanese don't reach the level of beauty of "models" and "stars". His broad point is about homogeneity and unexceptionalism, and attractiveness is just one example. I still don't see why this minor sub-sub-point deserves a paragraph in his "Works and views", given the considerable body of writings Taylor has authored.

As phrased, it also gives the false impression that "waddling colossi" are the American norm, when he's merely stating that the fattest Americans exceed (so to speak) the fattest Japanese.

However, I'll leave it alone for now, in case anyone else wants to chime in. Tyuia (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of 8/15 changes to Taylor article

There are four areas I've addressed:

1. Paved With Good Intentions

Taylor’s book is about blacks, not multiculturalism, and what I have provided is the central thesis of the book.

2. Donahue Interview

In the Donahue interview, Taylor does not say anything that could be characterized as claiming that “Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.”

What I have inserted reflects Taylor’s actual words from the Donahue interview: “The Mexican officials themselves are proud of the fact that, as they say, street by street, town by town, Mexico is taking back the Southwestern part of the United States.” I have also fixed the link in note 6 so it leads to a transcript of the actual interview.

3. European Immigration Policies

The former version is mind-reading: “Taylor has often expressed great personal distaste over the growing presence of non-whites in European and European-derived countries.” Perhaps Taylor does have “great personal distaste” for non-whites in Europe, but the quotation from him that follows does not prove it. This article should let readers draw their own conclusions from Taylor’s own words; therefore the setup to the quote should be neutral.

4. Appearance of the Japanese

The two sentences I have deleted are incoherent. On the subject of physical attractiveness, Taylor has written only this: “Physical beauty is subjective, but many Westerners think that even if Japanese women never achieve the breath-taking beauty of European models or movie stars, they have a high average level of attractiveness. Staying slim and dressing stylishly have a lot to do with it.”

Taylor does not attribute their attractiveness to immigration policy, and “attention to detail” is a clumsy rewording of “staying slim and dressing stylishly.” Given the nature of Taylor’s work and interests, his views on the attractiveness of Japanese is extremely unimportant, but if something about them is to be included at all, the passage should reflect something he actually wrote.

The “slouching kind of contempt” phrase is in the specific context of uniformed personnel. Perhaps Taylor thinks blacks and Hispanics in general have a “slouching kind of contempt” for their jobs, but he does not say that here. Therefore this section should be left entirely out, or the fuller passage should be quoted so the reader can draw his own conclusions.

TuppertwoTuppertwo (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the section about the Japanese people back. Attractiveness and immigration policy are tied by the beginning of that section: "Behind all this efficiency, of course, is the Japanese people, who by keeping out alien populations, have maintained complete control over their society. To the Western eye, they are physically homogeneous . . . "

The reasons for his separatist views are partially aesthetic. I think this is relevant. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If Taylor has “separatist views” why would he call the Japanese attractive? I repeat, his views of the Japanese are an unimportant part of his body of work, but if included, should be quotations rather than inaccurate paraphrasing.

Furthermore, regarding the "white separatist" label in the opening: First, the quotation from Taylor is not in the Donahue interview. It is here:

http://www.amren.com/news/news04/02/27/jtconf2004talk.html

Second, it is deeply misleading to call Taylor a “white separatist” on the basis of this passage. Taylor specifically denies being a “separatist” in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENXFxETlGQ

In the following article he also rejects the label of “separatist” and argues for complete freedom of association.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/06/

The following statements also emphasize freedom of association, which is not commonly assumed to be the same as “white separatism,” which implies forcible exclusion.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/smu_cancels_deb.php

http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/01/

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/07/a_reply_to_taki.php

If someone thinks the passage about being “left alone” is important, quote it as one of Taylor’s views and let the reader make up his own mind.

Finally, regarding Katrina: The setup here to the quotation about the “capacity of blacks” is mind-reading, so I have made it neutral.

TuppertwoTuppertwo (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Fastilysock - Apropos my changes and question

There used to be a picture. So it's a legitimate question to ask why it was removed. Why do you insult me? Why do you call me a vandal? Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV – and my honest and open opinion is that many of Nosliwnad's changes made the article worse. Why was the infobox removed? Instead of insulting me and threatening to censor further contributions you should be open-minded and open for discussion. 217.236.201.18 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

There used to be a picture of Jared Taylor. Why was is removed? 217.236.201.18 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan...?

"David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan..."

I was wondering if this could be reduced to just "David Duke" or perhaps changed to "David Duke, former Republican Louisiana State Representative." My concern is that it is misleading since that time in his life was over 30 years ago, and he was in a nonviolent sect. Plus, he has done a lot of other noteworthy things since then such as politics, authoring two books, etc. To my knowledge, Jared Taylor is not associated with the Ku Klux Klan, so why bring it up here?

164.111.225.230 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation of 2010 American Renaissance conference

It's good that an entry was created for this, since this was a noteworthy event, but I notice that while painstaking efforts were made to document Don Black's history, and to call his website "neo-Nazi" (is this an attempt at guilt by association?) Jared Taylor simply appeared as a guest on this program. This does not imply that he endorses Don Black's opinions or background. At the same time that such diligent attempts to document Don Black's background were made, the instigator of the conference cancellation was completely left out of the entry. Surely if Don Black's background is so important, the individual who orchestrated the conference shutdown, as well as his connection to the United States government, should not be left out of the story. In addition, the entry said that Taylor called the incident "vicious." Which is not true. I just listened to the interview and I could find no use of the word "vicious" by Taylor. Therefore, I have inserted an actual quote of Taylor's from the interview into the entry. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

164.111.225.154 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2/23 Edits

This latest iteration of the Taylor entry still contains irrelevant and erroneous information which seems intended to leave the reader with the impression that Taylor is an anti-Semite, a charge which the ADL ( “...Taylor himself personally refrains from anti-Semitism.” http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/jared_taylor/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=taylor and the and SPLC (“One thing that separates Taylor from much of the radical right, however, is his lack of anti-Semitism”)http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jared-taylor both dispute.

Taylor's primary focus is race, and it is through his writings on racial issues that he has become a public figure. The article about Israel is irrelevant to his larger body of work. The section on the Holocaust is built upon a single sentence Taylor appears to have written in a private email. It too is irrelevant. Ian Jobling appears to be a disgruntled former employee of Taylor, so unless he is identified as such, his opinions shouldn't feature so prominently in an entry about Taylor. Appearing together in the same entry, Israel, the Holocaust, and charges of condoning anti-Semitism, are something a reader would expect to see about someone who is anti-Jewish; Taylor is not, so the mention of them in his entry is misleading. It is unfair to Taylor and the reader, and should be removed.

Finally, the Color of Crime monograph contains no mention of authorship. It is not listed among Ian Jobling's publications, so listing him as a co-author seems to be original research and should be removed.Tuppertwo (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront Radio and AR Conference

There are problems with the inclusion of the Stormfront radio appearance and the section regarding the AR conference. The bit about the AR conference appears on the AR Wikipedia entry, which would seem the proper place for it. It's inclusion here, on Taylor's entry, is irrelevant. The inclusion of the Stormfront radio appearance is further evidence that this entry is being used to peg Taylor as an anti-Semite. The paragraph as written is also inaccurate and misleading. The radio program is not hosted by former KKK leader Don Black, but rather by Derek Black, as the included link makes clear. Also, according to the AR webpage, Taylor discussed the conference cancellation on a New Orleans radio station http://www.amren.com/interviews/2010/0219jeff-crouere/index.html. This entry makes it look like he spoke only to Stormfront. Apparently Taylor contacted the media: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/02/how_liberty_die.php but nobody else was interested. Without corrections, and without including some additional information, the purpose of these revisions seems to be to imply or support the charge that Taylor is an anti-Semite, something even his "official" enemies don't claim. See above.

Taylor may be a racist and have some problematic associations, but he isn't an anti-Semite. Wikipedia should not be allowing people to use his entry to claim that he is.Tuppertwo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

7/28 Edits

Substituted "race realist" for "racialist" and "white nationalist." Based on recent interviews, this seems to be a more accurate description of Taylor's views. Removed reference to Prof. Robert Weissberg. This is irrelevant. Pointing out Weissberg's religion smacks of "some of my best friends are..."Tuppertwo (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be that he also or now describes himself that way, but if so we should add the new terms but not delete the old ones. "In 2005 he said X. In 2010 he said Y." As a biography, this should tell the story ofhis life, not just the current version.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, provided there is direct documentation of "In 2005 he said X." Unfortunately, the sources cited do not offer evidence of Taylor saying, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist." In the recent Examiner interview, Taylor is asked, "Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?" and responds, "No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire." The note/link attached to "racialist" in the text refers to an article from FAIR in which Taylor is the "self-described 'racialist' and 'white separatist' editor of The American Renaissance . . ." but this article provides no evidence of Taylor describing himself that way. Also, in the Vdare piece, the "citizenism" debate between Sailer and Taylor, while Sailer describes Taylor as a "white nationalist," Taylor acknowledges defending white nationalism without declaring, "I am a white nationalist." If I defend France from accusations of colonial imperialism, that doesn't make me a Frenchman or an imperialist. If a source quotes Taylor saying directly, "I am a racialist" or "I am a white nationalist," provide a link and by all means use it. Otherwise I think you'd have to say, "Taylor describes himself as a 'race realist' while others describe him as a 'racialist' or 'white nationalist.'"Tuppertwo (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That proposal sounds logical. Go ahead.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• and he said that "I could be described as a 'white nationalist'" in 2005.

It's disgusting and disgraceful of you to whitewash a matter of solid, objective fact that he said what he did. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading your source, and taking what you purport to be a quote out of context. Here is the full sentence: "Discussing the futility of uplift programs that ignore the realities of race and IQ, Mr. Sailer mentioned my foundation’s recent report, The Color of Crime and predicted that the Mainstream Media would ignore it both because the contents are true and because I could be described as a 'white nationalist.'" [Source: http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050929_citizenism.htm] The solid, objective fact is that Sailer has characterized Taylor as a "white nationalist," not that Taylor is describing himself that way. If you read the original piece by Sailer, you'll find that this is what he wrote: "I'm sure the statistics Taylor reports will be dismissed simply because it will be easy to criticize Taylor's principles. He and his journal, American Renaissance, espouse a white nationalist viewpoint." [Source: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050918_crime.htm]. Taylor, in his response, merely acknowledges that Sailer considers him a white nationalist, which is not the same thing as Taylor acknowledging that he is a white nationalist. Once again, in order to be fair and objective, without a source documenting that Taylor says, "I am a white nationalist," one would have to say, "Others describe him as a white nationalist."Tuppertwo (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. I notice that you have also whitewashed all of these nasty hateful things said Taylor said about non-Europeans from this article while refusing to defend that edit. Instead, you did two edits at the same time for two different blocks of text to obscure yourself. But you didn't could on the eagle eyes of other Wikipedia editors.

• 1)With respect to your whitewashing of anti-nonwhite material said by Taylor, you have given no justification. So revert that edit immediately.
• 2)As for the other issue, the 'white nationalist' term, you are dodging the question and not responding to fact. He wrote: "I could be described as a 'white nationalist.'". He did not write that he is one, which is what you are falsely claiming that I am trying to put into the article. He merely said that he could be described as one-- that is, by other people.

You errenously claim=

in order to be fair and objective, without a source documenting that Taylor says, "I am a white nationalist," one would have to say, "Others describe him as a white nationalist."

But this is what the article already says. Your handwaving is pathetic. The article says that Taylor has said that others can call him a 'white nationalist'. That is what is in this article.

I can see from your editing history that you never edit Wikipedia except on this page. And you have a pattern of making Taylor look nicer and nicer with your edits. This won't do. Wikipedia is not meant for single-purpose people with an agenda like you. Please stop this foolishness at once! 129.120.176.206 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through the editing guidelines again. Pay particular attention to what’s listed in the box at the top of this page, regarding politeness, the assumption of good faith, the avoidance of personal attacks, neutrality of POV, and attempting to use these pages for “general discussion of the article’s subject.” I’m not trying to “whitewash” Taylor. I’m trying to ensure that Taylor’s views are presented accurately and objectively. Taylor is controversial because he publicly challenges the status quo on a number of culturally and politically sensitive issues. You and many others who edit this page are trying to selectively use material about Taylor to guide readers into making certain conclusions about him. Hence your selective editing of the Vdare piece. You believe Taylor is “nasty” “hateful” and “anti-nonwhite,” and go to pains to ensure that Wikipedia readers will reach similar conclusions. This is “outcomes-based editing” otherwise known as partisanship, otherwise known as bias. Which is why you label my efforts to make this entry conform to standards of neutrality as a “pattern” of making it “nicer and nicer.” This makes *your* agenda pretty clear. But, then again, this isn’t about you, or me. It’s supposed to be about Jared Taylor, isn’t it?Tuppertwo (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Added "by others" to make the point clearer. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are *not* making points clearer, you are engaging in further distortion and intellectual dishonesty. Your edit reads: He has written that "non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments— not those of whites— and whites will not like that society" since "blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which "citizens" must pay" (emphasises in the original). You are linking two separate paragraphs from the Vdare piece out of order and out of context. Taking the latter first: Taylor writes, in the full paragraph, "Let us assume that Mr. Sailer has his way, and the facts about race and IQ become widely accepted. Whites now fully understand that blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people. They will always bring crime, bad schools, and more social costs for which "citizens" must pay." The second paragraph, which is seven paragraphs down from the first, reads in full: "I think Mr. Sailer would agree that it is because non-whites will fashion a society that reflects their genetic endowments—not those of whites—and whites will not like that society." Taylor is talking making two distinct points in these paragraphs. They cannot honestly be linked the way you've done it, by selectively editing them, reverting the order, and tying them together with "since"--implying that the one concludes from the other. That's *your* interpretation, not Taylor's. Readers can go to the Vdare piece [3] and see for themselves what Taylor wrote. They don't need you to draw conclusions for them.

And by the way, the plural of "emphasis" is "emphases" not "emphasises."Tuppertwo (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why a past quote by him is so relevant. It certainly doesn't belong in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has two references named "white"

I didn't realize that such a mistake was possible to make without the engine giving an error. Can someone go through the article and figure out which references are which and separate the two? --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave a shot at trying to figure it out, with no luck. Maybe I just got confused trying to figure what reference goes with what citation, but it looks like neither of these references actually verify the material in the article. I've tagged the article for cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Both interviews are the same, one was just a reprint of the other. I've removed the duplicate. However, I couldn't verify the quotes, only the "racial realist" claim. I'm guessing someone was quoting a different interview. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)