Jump to content

Talk:Jared Taylor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.252.224.26 (talk) at 12:06, 4 July 2020 (→"White supremacist"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

In the beginning of the article I recommend changing "American white supremacist" to "American author". As "white supremacist is a derogatory term and has a bias. Thanks much. InferableSpy (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — InferableSpy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I'm sorry, how is that term derogatory? Or what is the bias? I mean, he believes in white superiority and racist ideology, so why should he be ashamed of that term? Also, the term is well-verified by secondary sources, no? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear kid, can you provide any facts confirming that Taylor "believes in white superiority and racist ideology"? First of all, he bases his claims on scientific evidence, not on any religious faith, so the first word in this quotation is clearly false. Second, he acknowledges that some abilities of the whites are 'inferior' to other races, so his alleged ideology of universal white superiority is your personal fantasy. And third, do you really want to tell me that acknowledging racial differences in certain abilities is 'racist ideology'? Do you want to sue Mother Nature that she did not create the world according to your wishes? 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RS say it so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the term 'white Asian supremacist'? Would you like it? 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is he Asian?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How isn't it derogatory? Being labeled one is enough to lose your livelihood and be attacked in the streets. What you're people are doing here is dangerous. How does him "believing in white superiority" goes along with the "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. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter" part later in the article? Doesn't that make him an Asian supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumalojumalo (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Jumalojumalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, because reliable sources do not call him an "Asian supremacist". Further, very few, if any, reliable sources attempt to explain what "Asian supremacy" is, neither in theory, nor in practice. White supremacy, on the other hand, has over a century of scholarship behind it, which Taylor, as a supposed "intellectual", should know about. We know what white supremacy means, we know the ideology behind it, and we can easily point to policies and historical phenomena that support it. Taylor has a very well-documented history of supporting these policies and ideologies. This track record, more than his PR-minded deflections, are what sources are looking at.
I have no idea whether it's from some off-site playbook, or this is sock puppetry, or some other reason, but this "Asian supremacist" nonsense is tissue-thin, and remains completely unpersuasive no matter how many times brand new accounts bring it up on this talk page. Reliable, independent sources have evaluated Taylor's comments and come to the reasonable conclusion that he is a white supremacist based on his own publications. Pointing to some model minority as if it were a "gotcha" is meaningless for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reliable sources call him what he is: a white supremacist. That you, Jumalojumalo, feel he is some other variety of racist is as immaterial as his denial. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jumalojumalo, I think the count of Nazis being punched in the streets stands at 1, this last decade. I'm not sure how many "lost their livelihood". I do know that Wikipedia doesn't practice political correctness; I think it's sad that we are asked to limit the truth because someone thinks this is somehow a derogatory term. I'm reminded of this tune; rejoice! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where these [[WP:SPA#single purpose accounts are coming from. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of the intro to this either (for some of the reasons you stated).....but the fact this is elaborated on later (in the "views" section; including the fact Mr. Taylor rejects such a notion) makes the article adequate for me. I do think it would be better to start out differently (perhaps saying he has been "described"/"called" a white supremacist).....but I do not contemplate any action (at this time).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"White supremacist"

In the beginning it says "Samuel Jared Taylor is an American white supremacist" but then later on in the article it says he thinks asians are objectively more superior than whites" so in the beginning it would be more like, Samuel Jared Taylor is an American Asian Supremacist. Jaxso71 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist, so Wikipedia says he is a white supremacist. If the sources said he is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich, even if you find something saying there's some ham in there. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying (as Taylor's views are pretty unusual for any white supremacist) but like SummerPhD says: we go with what reliable sources say. To use his/her analogy, we discuss how much ham is in the cheese later in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you consider "Independent reliable sources", but if you mean some people on the main stream media or some interest groups, then it is very debatable that they are "reliable". Most of them are not neutral and an encyclopedia should not take their words but vice versa. Let me quote Wikipedia's first sentence describing 'White supremacy': "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them." Jared Taylor makes it very clear every time this comes up, that he DOES NOT BELIEVE that "white people are superior to people of other races", and he OPPOSES COMPLETELY to "therefore [whites] should be dominant over them [other races]". This is not debatable. He has many hours of interviews, YouTube videos and many articles written. He simply does not fit the definition of a white supremacist. He DOES FIT the definition of a white nationalist.
A better description of him can be "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white NATIONALIST.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israeliconservative (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Israeliconservative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hey, good luck in selling the idea that the mainstream media isn't essentially neutral, thatt'll go over big on Wikiepdia. Further, that you think that "white nationalist" is in some way less appalling than "white supremacist" is cute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
("Isreali onservative" my ass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
"Independent reliable sources" are explained at WP:SOURCE. Short answer: "Independent" not connected to the subject. "Reliable sources" are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So, for example, a peer reviewed journal with a high impact score is reliable for most material. So is the New York Times. If either one reports election returns, you can pretty much assume those returns are a simple fact.
Toward the other end of the spectrum are blogs, political screeds, conspiracy theory sites, tabloids, etc. A few clear examples are outlined at WP:RS/P.
Pointing to a definition of "white supremacist" (or any other term) from any source and trying to determine if it applies to a subject is original research, inevitably leading to arguments about whether or not the Moon landings happened, HIV causes AIDS, Bigfoot exists, etc. Wikipedia doesn't do that. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources say. If such sources said Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. Arguing he has neither cheese nor bread is pointless. We'd be moving on to deciding whether to link to Cheese sandwich or to Cheese and Sandwich.
Independent reliable sources say Taylor is a white supremacist who edits a white supremacist magazine, published by a white supremecist organization he runs, which he says is "white separatist". - SummerPhDv2.0 05:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these brand new accounts, saying the same thing over and over, but never saying anything new, and never giving any decent response to the last time it was debunked...
Since Tayor speaks Japanese, the Japanese article refers to him as "白人至上主義". Should we call him that, instead? No, wait, that's another term for white supremacy, oh well. It's obvious that even in an encyclopedia, these words aren't as nuanced as their advocates would like to pretend. The point of Wikipedia is not to make room for confusion, it's to summarize, and "white supremacist" does a good job of summarizing reliable source.
"White nationalism", on the other hand, was popularized by full-on white supremacists as a way to make their white supremacist ideas seem less white supremacist. It's not some complicated political ideology which is vastly different, and it never has been that.
What's interesting to me is the repeated focus on a simplistic definition of white supremacy. This is likely based on a selective reading of Wikipedia's article on white supremacy. But of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
The exact same selective interpretation is often used at Lana Lokteff, who has shared screens with Taylor at least once or twice, as well as other articles. Whenever "white supremacist" is used, there's a push to tone-it-down to "white nationalist", just as we see here. But whenever that is used, such as at Stefan Molyneux (another of Taylor's chums), there's a push to tone-it-down to something even more euphemistic. Taylor himself has written about this at least a few times. He's given the game away, since he's told us that he's fully aware this is a word game. His preference is about public relations, not accuracy, and nobody should care too much about that nonsense Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all a shell game, the euphemism treadmill being harnessed for illicit purposes. We need to keep this under control, and not let them pervert facts and accuracy so they can hide in the interstices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Jared Taylor is a "white supremacist" can just be easily refuted by any random quotation of his opinions. Wikipedia is no place for immature hippie kids, who promote loony Neomarxist ideologies with which they were brainwashed in school. Kick them out of here! If you want the word "supremacist" in the text, then formulate it according to objective facts: 'Jared Taylor is called "a white supremacist' by some organizations such as SPLC'. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK simple question, can you provide one quote where he says he is not a white supremacist?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A very complicated response: Have you ever watched any video with Taylor or have you ever read any of his articles? One of the contributors above just quoted his words that refute all the garbage on this page. Your words testify that you have no clue who this man is. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it like this, "the moon is made of green cheese, cheese comes from cows, cows eat grass". Just because I said two thins that are correct does not mean that I never said the moon is made of green cheese. So where does he deny it, not merely not say something racist, deny it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're off on a side track. Wikipedia does not care what the subject says it is. I'm sure McDonalds says it is the best restaurant chain in the world. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If the sources regularly and repeatedly said that Jared Taylor is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. That he does not say anything about being a cheese sandwich -- or even if he flatly denied it -- would be immaterial. Plenty of white supremacists/white nationalists/etc. like to use terms they feel are more palatable. If the person claims to be a "white separatist" or a "racialist" or (my favorite) a "racial realist", but the independent reliable sources say "white supremacist", Wikipedia says they are a white supremacist. Other popular arguments that we reject are that the person says things that aren't compatible with the label, the laundry list of sources is biased or it's not NPOV. The first argument is original research, the second fails at WP:RS/P, the third misunderstands WP:NPOV. Wikipedia neutrally reports what reliable sources say. The reliable sources say -- regularly and without equivocation -- that Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist organization funded by a white supremacist foundation. As a result, Wikipedia says Jared Taylor is a white supremacist who publishes a white supremacist magazine for a white supremacist organization funded by a white supremacist foundation. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving them the chance to at least justify "but is denied by him".Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That argument has been tried before in many similar articles. It will not change anything in the article, so there is no reason to ask for justification of it here. This article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. What Taylor likes to say he is does not alter that in any way. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but we lose nothing by giving them that chance. And any uninvolved reader coming here will see we gave them every chance to make a case based on more than "Well I don't think its true". It is importnat to make sure we are fair and above board, rather than just being dismissive.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually JT has denied he is a "white supremacist". (On Amren's web site [1].) But like Summer has said....we call him the sandwich RS says he is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can see he denies it (without knowing that it means), which we do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He said he didn't know what "white nationalist" means. Not "white supremacist". His definition of "white supremacist" (accurate by most definitions, including ours) is in part the desire to "rule other races"....which he says he has no desire to.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my mistake about what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We DO get into what Taylor says he is later in the article. I would take issue with the article (as well) if it just called him a white supremacist and didn't give his response to these accusations. We do.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has the SPLC been a reliable and trustworthy source? It is a loony leftist sect spiting slander in all directions. The fact that they claim things that Taylor has never said says a lot about their honesty and intellect. 46.252.224.26 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nieli (2019)

I have reintroduced and trimmed down the additions, except for the parts that directly quote Taylor since it was criticized by the edsum. That said, when scholars study the thought of an author (even a White Supremacist), they are generally quoting the texts and viewpoint of their subject. I'm not even quoting the interview myself (I have never read it), I'm quoting Nieli who is referring to the interview he made for his research. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I'm only summarizing the chapter written by Nieli in the OUP-published Key Thinkers of the Radical Right. Please point to specific parts that you find undue. This is a short but comprehensive chapter I'm trying to trim down as best as I can, so it rather looks like WP:I don't like it than WP:Undue. Alcaios (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:SOAP, perhaps you're referring to "Japan expert" and "widely-acclaimed". Well, those are not my words but those of Nieli. As for Renaud Camus who was viewed as an influential "gay writer" in the 1980s and a widely-acclaimed author before he developed his conspiracy theory in the early 2000s, it's important to mention that these people and their works were well-received in mainstream society before they turned into white supremacists. Alcaios (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lack of edsums on my side, this is my way of contributing. I make a lot of small edits which, I admit, sometimes make following my additions difficult. I'll try to work more often in a draft before publishing. Alcaios (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and efforts to use edit-summaries. Let's see what others think. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not engaging in an edit war. I have trimmed down and adapted the new content to address your criticism in the edsum. Alcaios (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Taylor&oldid=965951931"