Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comments about POV in article and debate over his views

Jared Taylor is a hard-core, right wing, bigoted, disgusting white supremacist and it really feels like this write-up glosses over that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.67.254 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

If we label him "disgusting" some might view that as expressing a POV without providing any information. Better to describe actual things that he did or said which would allow the reader to make up their own mind about him. Be bold, find some good sources, and add to this article. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a little biased to have all those references to leftist "anti-racist" sites? One ought to suffice.

The first link isn't really worth anyone's time to read. It's just trying to demonise Taylor by associating him with figures it claims are 'neo-fascist' despite the fact that they explicity say they aren't (See British National Party/Nick Griffin). This article from a "progressive" website is the very definition of bias. It's not information, it's defamation. -The boy that picked flowers and made people laugh

I just wanted to note that while I personally disagree with many of the decidedly unrealistic and silly conclusions Taylor reaches (separation of the races within America, etc.) and find him to be a tad obnoxious at times, if you read his information at no point does he advocate or argue the supremacy of whites. Taylor is very comfortable in acknowledging that Ashkenazi Jews (whom he considers white for all intents and purposes) and north Asians score higher on IQ tests than Anglo whites. Therefore, trying to claim Jared Taylor is a white supremacist is both unproductive and demonstrably untrue. Just my two cents.65.92.53.132 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Pepe

If pressed, Taylor might also admit that Blacks are better basketball players. But none of that rules out white supremacism, which is more concerned with who holds power. If Taylor wrote that because Jews and Asians are more intelligent they should therefore be in control, then he certainly would not be a white supremacist. -Will Beback 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is some extremely fallacious logic you are using there my friend.

"If Taylor wrote that because Jews and Asians are more intelligent they should therefore be in control, then he certainly would not be a white supremacist."

Since when is that the definition or litmus test for who is and is not a white supremacist? If you look at the etymology or construction of the phrase "white supremacist", I think that it is both rather clear (not to mention redundant) to glean that it is one who advocates the SUPREMACY of whites. While Jared Taylor certainly possesses his own biases concerning both individuals and societies (in favor of western Anglo-Caucasians and the civilizations they have created), he has NEVER asserted the supremacy of this racial/ethnic group in any of his writings, and I would ask you to provide even a single piece of evidence to back this claim.

Taylor has consistently held that blacks score lower on IQ tests for mainly genetic reasons, he has said that they are inherently more crime prone than whites ie not due to past and current racial discrimination or the legacy of past racial discrimination, that they are likely to be inherently less altruistic than whites and that they by and large are cognitively ill-equipped to handle life in a modern Western society. OK he may never have come straight out and said "blacks are inferior" but surely even the most obtuse observer would easily impute from Taylor's statements on blacks that he considers them to be inferior in most people's definition of the term.

Taylor certainly IS a white nationalist and white separatist (IMO the former possibly having some validity and the latter being a ridiculous and quixotic belief system) but there is an absolute absence of proof with regards to the "Jared Taylor as advocate of white supremacy" claim.

As an aside, you noted,

"But none of that rules out white supremacism, which is more concerned with who holds power. If Taylor wrote that because Jews and Asians are more intelligent they should therefore be in control[...]"

While "none of that" rules out white supremacism, it also in no way proves that Jared Taylor IS a white supremacist. While I will concede that absence of proof is not proof of absence, using double negative reasoning (ie: "Well prove to me that Jared Taylor ISN'T a white supremacist!") does not make for a particularly convincing argument.

Furthermore, to state that the only way that Jared Taylor can prove he is not a white supremacist is to advocate that only people of Asian and Jewish descent should maintain power is ludicrous. Doing so would be an advocation for aristocracy (ie "rule by the best) which is in direct conflict with America's democratic republic form of governance, meaning by your logic Mr. Taylor can only prove he is not a white supremacist by asserting his anti-democratic bona fides.

Also worth noting is that the census for the year 2000 states that 69% of Americans are Caucasian. Even if we were to assume that Ashkenazi Jews are counted twice as both Eastern European descended Caucasians and as Jews (as Judaism is labelled a religion and not necessarily an ethnicity or separate racial grouping), that would still leave us with a population comprised of 67% non-Jewish white citizens, 2% ethnic Jewish citizens and 4% Asian citizens. Now when you say "in control" I'm going to (while going out on a rather large limb) assume that you're speaking of representation within government. In that case, even if we were to assume that the genetically inherited cognitive abilities of both Jews and Asians would allow both groups to be over-represented in government at twice the rate of a "less able" racial group (at 4% and 8% respectively), the net composition of government in the United States would STILL be comprised of a statistical majority of white citizens.

Your reasoning as to how Jared Taylor is supposed to prove himself a non white supremacist is flawed, undemocratic and lacks basic logic (both stastically speaking and otherwise).65.92.49.185 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Pepe

If you read the discussion above my message you'll see that another unregistered user, or maybe you, said that Taylor can't be a supremacist because of X, Y, Z. I was simply saying that that is not true, that X,Y, or Z do not contradict supremacism. Ultimately, it is our job, as Wikipedia editors, to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If you search Google you will find that Taylor is frequently called a supremacist. That's why we call him one, not because he meets our own criteria. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's fine to include criticism of Jared Taylor, and if that criticism happens to take the form of his detractors labelling him a "white supremacist" then so be it. The problem in my view is that Jared Taylor's detractors are using spurious (and even non existant) logic, combined with emotional anti-racist hysterics when forming their criticisms. One can search the internet and find proponents of flat Earth theory, but that does not, in fact, make the Earth flat. Likewise, if Jared Taylor's critics choose to label him a white supremacist, while that is lovely, it would seem that their characterization is bereft of proof given that they cannot point to a single writing or statement made by Mr. Taylor advocating the supremacy of whites.

Say I were to label you a pedophile and "publish" that characterization on the internet in a manner that made it suitable as a outside source citable for Wikipedia. Despite the fact that I have no proof that you are a pedophile (and for the record, I sincerly doubt you are one) and despite the fact that I can point to no action, statement or writing on your behalf that would confirm your pedophiliac tendencies, my purely opinionative statement would be considered a valid detracting characterization of you as an individual. In my view, such an action is directly analogous to the behavior Jared Taylor's critics are engaging in.

"Well, we have no empirical evidence upon which to conclude that Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, but we think he's a tad too well-spoken, and generally a big racist meanie and I think he sounds like a white supremacist so, ergo, he is one."

You're including an opinion (devoid of any proof or citation) and doing so would seem to be inherently POV and in direct conflict with Wikipedia's policy on the issue. If you can find a characterization of Jared Taylor as a white supremacist that bases the assertion on any proof (including statements made by Mr. Taylor or writings published by Mr. Taylor) then I would certainly encourage you to keep the dissenting characterization. Otherwise, such a depiction would seem to be inherently POV and in conflict with the Wkipedia policy.

Not to mention the fact that anytime I see the SPLC used a source, it immediately sets off my bullshit detector. If you are not aware of what I am speaking of, I would refer you to the November 2000 article published in Harper's Magazine, entitled 'The Church of Morris Dees', which can be found here: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm

It is not for us to evaluate the accuracy of a criticism. All we can do is failry summarize the criticism and the rebuttal, if any. I've added some more details from Potok's criticism of Taylor to answer your concern that we are repeating a claim that has no supporting evidence. -Will Beback 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's review the additional information and see if it is merely opinion or actual proof of Jared Taylor being a white supremacist, shall we? I'll dissect the points in reverse order.

1. "Potok calls The Color of Crime, "a booklet that tries to use crime statistics so as to 'prove' that blacks are far more criminally prone than whites."

The Color of Crime cites statistics provided by the US Depatment of Justice and state correctional authorities; Jared Taylor isn't simply making up his own statistics nor is he distorting the provided statistics.

For instance, current statistics show that blacks are represented are imprisioned at a rate of around 1100 per 100,000 as compared to whites at less than 200 per 100,000 (approximately 180). Link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Race_and_crime

Also, nation-wide as of 1997, non-Hispanic whites comprised 34.8 percent of the prisoners, African-Americans 46.9 percent, Hispanics 16.0 percent, and others 2.3 percent. Given that black Americans comprise 13% of the population yet 46.9% of prison inmates (a massive over-representation), it would seem that blacks are more "prone" to commit crimes due simply to the fact that they as a group are being imprisioned at a higher rate (causation of the criminal behavior aside).

links for data:

http://www.isteve.com/Crime_Imprisonment_Rates_by_Race.htm

http://www.isteve.com/crime_imprisonment_data_by_state_by_race.htm

It would seem that Mark Potok's anger should be directed at the study of statistics and human beings ability to count what their eyes see, rather than Jared Taylor.

Now that we've established that Mr. Taylor's statistics (and the citation of said statistics) is correct, let's address the adjectives he attaches to black Americans AS A GROUP (nowhere does he label ALL black Americans or INDIVIDUAL black Americans as such). "Crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant" are the adjectives used. I believe we have already established that black Americans are more "prone" (having a tendency) to commit crimes. Secondly, as for the charge that black Americans are "dissipated", Mark Potok does not clarify whether Jared Taylor means "intemperate in the pursuit of pleasure" or "wasted or squandered". If Mr. Taylor is referring to the former, I can dig up the race based statistics on drug consumption, teen pregnancy and illegitimacy (drug use and sex being two rather obvious pleasurable behaviors) if you like. If Mr. Taylor is referring to the latter, I don't really see how anyone can argue that the current rate of black incarceration is anything BUT a waste. In any event, since when are either of those comments decidedly pejorative and indicative of white supremacy? Moving right alone, let's tackle "pathological", meaning "of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive". Given that the black imprisionment statistics have either stayed static or increased over the last century, explain how that is anything other than habitual. Also, given that our society universally views criminal behavior as unacceptable and detrimental to society at large, any group that shows disproportionately high levels of criminal behavior is arguably exhibiting maladaptive tendencies in relation to the societal norms. Lastly, "deviant": given that deviant means differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society, and given that our society does not accept criminal behavior and black Americans are committing crimes at a higher rate (or deviating from the societal norm at a higher rate), I cannot see a refute to this characterizaztion.

Lastly, while it's nice that Mark Potok labels the Council of Conservative Citizens as racist, he does not provide a justification or citation for THIS characterization either. Also, one might want to question Mr. Potok as to whether or not we are now playing a game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon: Racism Edition", as he feels content to characterize private citizens as "white supremacists" without bothering to cite any proof and based merely upon the individual's constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.

Why not simply state, "It is the personal opinion of Mark Potok that Jared Taylor is a racist, etc." OR "Mark Potok characterizes Mr. Taylor as a "racist"; though he has as yet declined to cite as basis for this characterization". That would seem a lot simpler than adding a bunch of decidedly POV mumbo-jumbo courtesy of Mr. Potok.

This diatribe is both poorly-written and illogical. Simply because blacks are imprisoned more than whites per capita does not mean that they are 'more prone to crime,' and it certainly doesn't equate to a NATURAL proclivity. Many African Americans, and the VAST majority of those in correctional facilities, come from poor socio-economic backgrounds. This is more about upbringing than 'race,' and indeed the very idea of 'race' has been scientifically disqualified by those who /really/ know what they are talking about. Poor whites do drugs, get pregnant without being wed while teenagers, and end up in prison too. This is a class issue, not a race one, and anyone who says otherwise is either already heavily biased, or simply a liar. 155.188.247.5 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide if Taylor or a supremacist, a realist, a human, or anything else. All we can do is summarize sources, not judge proof. If you have some additional sources which provide a diferent viewpoint then let's summarize those too. -Will Beback 05:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you ask some drunked Hispanic homeless what he thinks about Taylor? And what about asking some Guatemalean cleaning woman from New York? I think you should summarize their opinions. Everybody, who thinks that Taylor is a racist, must be quoted on Wikipedia! 82.100.61.114 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While you may think those are noteworthy opinions they would not meet Wikipedia's standards. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this ariticle would be improved by removing the last paragraph with the quotes by Mark Potok. It's enough to say that he has critics and to name those critics, but you don't need direct quotes from his critics especially with none from Taylor himself. -James S. 09:26, 09 March 2006 (PST)

We can summarize the criticism, but we should not remove it. If there is a direct quote from Taylor that you think would nehance the article then please add it. -Will Beback 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

links

Why do we have external links to ADL and SLPC. Those organizations are not an authority on determining who is who. They pursue their own political agendas and are not qualified to judge anybody. Those links must be removed.

We have links to those organizations because they have made significant comments about the subject. -Will Beback 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, the Internet is a much bigger information space then Wikipedia, and by being biased against whites, the Wikipedia project is going the same way as the "Mainstream" Media - dead end.

Wikipedia is biased against racists, as well it should be. Bastie 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not biased against racists or Whites, and should not be. Wikipedia is meant to comprehensively report objective observations, and at best draw rational conclusions, not to condemn or promote any particular worldview. Capiche? This article is objective, comprehensive and rational on the topic, as it should be. --SohanDsouza 05:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor has personally told me that he is more of a paleolibertarian than anything else. Now since that is anecdotal you may not believe me. But, ee has written for the Last Ditch, which is libertarian, and wrote in praise of Democracy the God that Failed on two sites(one of which is his own) while praising the Mises Institute in the VDare column. The links are here and here http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ http://www.amren.com/0201issue/0201issue.html#article2 and http://www.vdare.com/taylor/hoppe.htm I don't see how you can use the term white nationalist while using the term paleolibertarian considering white nationalism can be used to mean a lot of different things while paleolibertarian may mean something that is not usually nationalistic. That's why I changed his opening sentence from paleoconservative, white nationalist to paleolibertarian, racalist. Why is that wrong? I will go ahead and do it and have someone tell me why I am wrong if that comes up

If we don't have a reliable source for his political inclination we should omit it. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering those sources are reliable since they are all from his own mouth I believe they should not be omitted.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was if we don't have a source for his political inclinations then we shouldn't label him. None of the three sources you list include the prefix "Paleo". If we decide on our own that the views expressed in his essays are those of a paleolibertarian then that's original research, forbidden by WP:OR. At most we might say that he's expressed sympathy for paleolibertarian views. -Will Beback · † · 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok if that is the case, then the previous paleoconservative, white nationalist label was under that category and nobody here protested even though there was not evidence constituting for that other than his vdare articles opposed to citizenism. If someone wanted to take down the current label and put nothing in its place, then that would be fine with me. But if someone is going to put what was previous to it, then I will have to protest.

I have restored “White Nationalist” to the lead. Doing an advanced Google search of Amren brings up multiple citable sources; however, the one I choose to use gives a broader range of Taylor’s views on the subject than any specific example from Amren. Clearly the readers and writers of Amren see themselves as Paoloconservative, as per a google search, but in searching Amren I could not find anything to directly tie that label to Taylor, nor could I find anything of him or his readers embracing the label paleolibertarian. Brimba 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a reader of Amren and know other readers from amren. There are many who do not seem themselves paleoconservatives. I ran an advanced google search with paleolibertarian and found multiple citable sources. On the Amren site, there is nothing that says white nationalism. So I am taking it off

white nationalist = 355 [1]

white nationalism = 226 [2]

paleolibertarian = 2 both in reference to Lew Rockwell [3]

Brimba 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I never said the search under white nationalist did not have more but that still doesn't refute my point of pointing out that on the American Renaissance site it does not mention white nationalism. It mentions race and being pro-European/White.

From Wikipedia, "Nationalism is a political ideology[1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles." Now where does Taylor say anything like this that the White race takes precedence over any social or political principle? That is what is implied by White nationalism.

This sentence in the article should be deleted:

Sentence

<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>

According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," but Potok provides no sources for these claims.

Assuming that I actually used these words in some discussion of blacks (this is Jared Taylor writing), it is impossible to know whether I was writing about one black, some blacks, or all blacks. The implicaiton, of course, is that I think all blacks are "pathological," "deviant," etc., which is something I have never thought, never said, and never written.

The sentence should therefore be removed permanently because it is unsourced and therefore unverifiable, and because it is a deliberate distortion of my views.

68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor68.227.194.12 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Potok quotes Taylor as saying those things.[4] If Taylor wants to publish as denial we can print that too. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which terms Taylor denies using. But I see he has written,

• Blacks are the most dangerous, crime-prone group in America ...[http://www.amren.com/997issue/997issue.html]

So there's some verifiability of the original quotations, not that we need it. -Will Beback · † · 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To Will Beback on Mark Potok quote.

I am certainly not denying that Mark Potok has written the sentence included in this article. I think it is a silly distortion of my writing, but if it is to remain in the article, I would appreciate it if the following reply from me could be included:

<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:

"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."

I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.194.12 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for my reply to be added to the main article.

I have noted above that I think a qotation from Mark Potok is an unfair distortion. In this connection, Mr. Beback wrote:

<< It is verifiable that Potok quotes Taylor as saying those things.[4] If Taylor wants to publish as denial we can print that too. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)>>

Therefore I would be grateful if my reply to Mr. Potok, indicated above and repeated below, could be added to the article:

<< Mr. Potok bases his criticsm on the following paragraph:

"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—-the undisputed equals of whites—-in such an abject state."

I challenge Mr. Potok to find any passage from my writing that describes blacks as a group as "pathological" or "deviant." >>

Jared Taylor

No response from Wikipedia to Jared Taylor

On May 16, 2007, I sent the following message to Wikipedia staff, which remained unaswered two weeks later:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am the subject of the following article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jared_Taylor and would like to request several corrections and clarifications.

(1) The following sentence is incorrect:

<< Taylor also sits on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a director of the National Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. >>

At one time it was accurate, but I am no longer on the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly nor am I any longer a director of the National Policy Institute.

(2) The following sentence is also incorrect:

<< New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which singles out African Americans and Hispanics as the chief cause of crime in America. >>

Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians, but they are *not* the chief cause(s) of crime, because they are minorities of 12 percent and 13 percent respectively. Because whites are still a majority of the American population, they account for a considerable amount of crime even though they commit crime at lower rates than blacks or Hispanics. The following sentence would be accurate:

“New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which uses government crime statistics to show that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians.”

(3) The following sentence is a silly distortion of my views:

<< Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >>

This string of out-of-context adjectives is not serious or legitimate criticism. Mr. Potok presumably bases part of his criticism on the following paragraph of which I am the author:

"If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them—the undisputed equals of whites—in such an abject state."

I think it is important for readers to know in what context I used the words “crime-prone” and “dissipated.” As for “pathological” and “deviant,” I can find no instance in my own work of having described blacks – either individually or as a group – as “pathological” or “deviant.” Perhaps Mr. Potok made this up, in which case the “quotation” is, in part, false.

I would suggest that Mr. Potok’s sentence of criticism of removed. Mr. Potok can express his opinions about me all he wants, but it is not fair to pass off his spurious and out-of-context “quotations” from my own work as a legitimate representation of what I think.

(4) The following sentence and paragraph are extremely misleading:

<< Right-wing Jewish critics have described elliptical statements by Taylor concerning the Holocaust as indicating a latent anti-Semitism. >>

There is no sense in which I am “latently anti-Semitic” or a Holocaust denier. I have had Jewish collaborators in every aspect of my political work. The charge of Holocaust denial is easily shown to be false. In response to a question as to whether the Nazi genocide resulted on the death of six million Jews, I replied, simply, that I had not looked into it. I meant, of course, the figure of six million, which is the only aspect of that question about which I would expect there to be debate.

I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.

I strongly urge that this entire section be taken out.

I realize you have a lot of work to do, but inaccuracies, distortions, and malicious charges are hurtful. I would appreciate your making these corrections at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours, Jared Taylor

Thanks for your note. I hadn't seen your last one. I've addressed each of your issues.

1) changed your former posts to the past tense.

2) "New Century Foundation published the report contributed to by Taylor The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1998, 2005) which calls African Americans "the most dangerous, crime-prone group in America" and asserts that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites or Asians."

3) "Potok criticizes Taylor for his comments about African Americans."

4) "Critics of Taylor have described him as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and he has been accused of sympathy to Holocaust denial."

When these criticisms exist we should report them, but we have latititude over how we do so. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the National Policy Institute know that Taylor is no longer a director? He's still listed on their website homepage, which apparently has been updated recently. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Labelling as Racist

I would strongly suggest that Mr. Taylor - who is clearly not a gentleman - be introduced to our worthy readers immediately - that is, in the opening sentence - as a racist (or racialist if you will - I find the distinction between the two specious and tiresome...) because it is chiefly for that aspect of his personality that his work has received the morsel of attention that allows him to be regarded as a public figure. Obnoxious and woefully misguided as he appears to be, Mr. Taylor seems to make an effort to think clearly at most times and as far as I am aware does not contend with the application of the label 'racist' to his person. In addition to all that has been said about leftist biases against Mr. Taylor: The man is not exactly a proponent of peace and harmony in the world. His paradigm sets out to promote strife and discord among the peoples of this tiny planet and as such is less than conducive to the progress of mankind into an ethically sound state of coexistence. The man must be characterised as what he is: a marplot, a vicious attacker of the peace and an intellectual arsonist. There is no doubt that Jared Taylor is a potentially very dangerous man. Somebody whose sole public existence is based on polarisation and wilful characterisation of others can only be characterised himself by means of polarisation.

Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read our policy on biography, WP:BLP. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the policy page above. I understand your concerns. I still think, however, that the term 'racist' (or' racialist') as denoting someone whose persona is overwhelmingly characterised by a mindset that categorises people according to their ethnic background is not necessarily slanderous. I understand its problematic nature, however, and concede that it should, for that reason, be avoided as a label. I would, lastly, be interested to know if Mr. Taylor himself would object to being labelled a racist/racialist.

Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Racialist" would be another matter. He's apparently used that term to describe himself in the past, [5][http://www.amren.com/inthenews/horowitz_reply.htm][6] and hosts articles which describe him that way.[http://www.amren.com/inthenews/mcconnell.htm] ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Taylor is a bad, bad racist, because he doesn't want 100 million Mexican Ignacios in the United States! 82.100.61.114 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Taylor is a racist on the basis of the definition of racism. His ideas on immigration are not part of the equation. Disregarding the troll, however, Mr. Beback: thank you for clarifying. 'Racialist' would be the safe and encyclopedic option. I have decided to leave the matter of changing the beginning of the article to somebody more experienced than myself. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should also leave commenting this article to someone more experienced and brainy than you. As far as I know, race riots in USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Spain occur without Taylor's assistance. 82.100.61.114 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I could at this point, dear 82.100.61.114, enter into a worthwhile discussion with you about structural violence. But alas, your primary objective seems to be the engagement in a subform of conventional heckling. And as you seem woefully reluctant to endow yourself with a name I find myself entirely unable to react to any of your statements forthwith. Oh, and as for what you would doubtless refer to as 'braininess', I believe the correct phrase in English would have been: "You should also leave commenting 'ON' this article to someone...". Forgive me if this is an unjust correction considering your own background, but here in England that is how we would put it. Good Bye for good and sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for a lesson in the Neomarxist newspeak. Since now, I know that every murder is a structural murder, every rape is a structural rape, and every robbery is a structural robbery. We live in a structural world, after all. 82.100.61.114 13:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Will Beback, and what to call Jared Taylor

Many thanks to Will Beback for the changes he made. I would add that the National Policy Institute web page no longer lists me as a director, so the article's reference to that position should be in the past tense.

I note that in a comment dated June 7, someone calling himself Ignacio Bibcraft urged Wikipedia to refer to me as a "racist," and I appreciate Mr. Beback's resistance to doing so. Mr. Beback expressed some curiosity as to how I might refer to myself.

First, I have always rejected the term "racist." Whatever the word means -- and definitions are so many and fluid I'm not sure anyone knows -- it implies some kind of moral inferiority. This I completely deny. My views on race are the result of many years of reflection and study. I consider them not only healthy and moral, but entirely in accord with what we know of history and human nature.

So what do I call myself?

The article says I have called myself a "racialist" and a "white separatist," but only the former is true. I have used the term "racialist" but do not recall ever calling myself a "white separatist." One would search the pages of my publication, American Renaissance, in vain for any such self-description. It is a mistake (or at the very least long out of date) and should be removed from the article.

Although I have used the term "racialist," I am not satisfied with it, partly because I agree with Mr. Bibcraft: the distinction between "racist" and "racialist" is not clear. Neither word has a useful definition. I have therefore not called myself a "racialist" for many years.

For some time, I have instead described myself as a race realist. A Google search of "Jared Taylor" and "race realist" will result in many pages of hits. This term is admittedly unfamiliar to most people, so what does it mean? Put concisely, it means recognizing at least the following: (1) That race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. (2) That although essentially all ranges of abilities are found in people of different races, there are important traits -- intelligence is the best studied -- in which there are racial differences in average ability. The evidence is overwhelming that these differences are at least partly genetic in origin.

I would add that my basic thinking about race has not changed a great deal since 1990, when I first began publishing American Renaissance. I might have forestalled confusion if I had hit upon the term "race realist" from the outset. In any case, it is the most accurate term with which to describe both me and my work.

Jared Taylor219.127.127.156 07:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking part in this discussion, Mr. Taylor. I greatly appreciate your clarification on what one should call you. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't read the essay by Taylor above, but Wikipedia is not in the business of describing people as they wish to be described. Wikipedia is about providing information backed up by reliable (preferably neutral) sources. Spylab 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We should not simply describe living people with pejorative terms like "racist", particularly if the subject disagrees with the characterization. However we can say that he has been called a "racist", so long as we attribute that description to the writer. By comparison, "Senator Robert Byrd is a Democrat, but he's been called a "racist" by X, Y, Z". On the other end of the spoectrum, Bill White (neo-Nazi) does not particularly disagree with that characterization, and it's as good as any for what is a common name. His domain names include "Nazi.org", so the usage is legitimate. .

So, in the context of writing an encyclopedia biography, I think we're right to say that the subject is a racialist, or concerned with racial topics, and then later that he has been called a "racist", along with other notable criticisms. A good pratice is to introduce the subject in terms they might euse for themselves, then follow that by terms in opposition. In a reverse Godwin, let me mention the well-crafted intro to "Adolf Hitler", which I think is very neutral. Let's do as well here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that 'racist' is not really a pejorative term. Of course most of us would hate to be called racists because it implies a deeply offensive ideology. Proponents of this ideology, however, generally seem to be okay with it. Mr. Taylor, it appears, is unhappy with both 'racist' and 'racialist' and suggests that 'race realist' would be the term to apply. (And yes, of course Wikipedia is not in the business of describing people as they wish to be described, but then, after all, that's how this whole discussion started. I was asked to read the article on biographies of living persons and refrain from calling Taylor a racist. Now Taylor, our living person, has added his two cents to this discussion, which appears to be exactly the point of this whole 'living persons' - thing, and whatever we think of him, his involvement in this discussion is commendable.) The term 'race-realist', however, is highly problematic in two respects. Firstly, it is little known and does not appear to be 'legal tender' in most academic circles. Secondly and most importantly, however, the term 'race realist' is subjective and aggrandising in its suggestion that to agree with an ideology such as the one propagated by Mr. Taylor is to be 'realistic' while taking the opposite view would most likely be 'unrealistic' or perhaps romantic. This taken into consideration I agree with Mr. Beback. Describe as racialist and follow up with him having been called racist. My reservations, however, remain. I think the difference between racist and racialist is murky at best, and neither is, coolheadedly, to be understood as being pejorative. Sincerely, Ignacio Bibcraft 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More False Charges Against Jared Taylor

Someone now claims I have had “dalliances with Japanese women” and that “evidence” has “surfaced” that I have a girlfriend named Yumi Akisada. I have never had a “dalliance with a Japanese woman,” and have never heard of Yumi Akisada. If such a person exists, I’m sure she will be astonished to read this nonsense.

I would have thought my sex life was of no interest to anyone, and replied in that vein when asked about it by a Canadian television reporter. I see, however, that people are prepared to believe all kinds of unsubstantiated rubbish. To anyone who claims I have had sexual relations with non-whites: Produce the evidence.

These charges are false and should be removed.

In fact there is incontrovertible evidence supporting the allegations of a relationship involving Mr Taylor and Yumi Akisada. Details will be available within two to three weeks (by mid July 07).

I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million. I have nothing approaching the historical expertise to determine which estimates are the most accurate. To interpret my reply of “not having looked into it” to mean that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.

False charges that can be clearly demonstrated as such have no place in a Wikipedia biography.

Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnote number 11, used as a source on this suggestion that Mr. Taylor has been involved with a relationship with a Japanese, does not work. I would be in favour of removing the paragraph about this, since there does not seem to be any reliable evidence to support the assertions it contains. Eeaee 10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Sensational and exciting as it may be to attribute 'interracial relations' to Mr. Taylor - the claim does seem unsubstantiated. Footnote 11 links to a page that currently contains no information about Taylor whatsoever. I'm going to look into the Herald and rectify the link if possible. Otherwise I will delete it altogether. In any case, the wording of the associated section would have to be modified. It is highly detrimental to Wikipedia's standards to include unsubstantiated claims and back them up with a single dead link. I would implore all of us to put the work in and search for reliable sources for these allegations in order to modify the article accordingly. Until then I suggest we remove the section altogether. It really doesn't help.

Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that others have recognized that these charges are false, please mitigate the damages by removing this section promptly.

Also, if the false charges of Holocaust denial are not removed, at the very least please insert my refutation.

Thank you.

Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mr. Taylor: the above statements do not mean exactly that we recognise the false nature of the allegations, but simply that we cannot produce the evidence. Sincerely, Bibcraft 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute about Mr. Taylor's views on the Holocaust was (I believe) conducted here:

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/

Mr. Taylor seems to make it quite clear that the Holocaust did take place, by writing:

"The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews."

clearly indicating the ethnic/religious persecution that the Jews suffered, as well as the massive nature of this persecution. It is misleading thus to say in the article that "he [Mr. Taylor] did not have an opinion on the six million figure" without referring to the rest of Mr. Taylors comments.

The article has not charged Mr Taylor with Holocaust denial. It simply states that some Jewish Palaeoconservatives have argued that Mr Taylor's vague statements on subject, could imply a sympathy towards the views of those such as Mark Weber, an avowed antisemite and an unregenerate Holocaust denier. So it is reasonable to leave this paragraph in unchanged.

As for the issue of the supposed relationship with a Japanese, I cannot find any other document referring to this apart from the wikipedia page. As well as being pretty puerile for an encyclopedia article, if it remains unverified, it should be removed. At the moment there is nothing to suggest it is anything more than fiction written directly into Wikipedia. Eeaee 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And as such I have removed said section entirely. Whoever fancies doing so may revert it once the supporting evidence has been produced along with a host of reliable, live links. Bibcraft 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Bibcraft. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several important points here. Some go far beyond this little biography, and we don't need to resolve them here. Suffice it to say that definitions of "Holocaust denial: vary. All we need to do here is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We should try to present the major viewpoints. A standard format is something like: first describe the subject as he might decribe himself, then report 3rd party assessments, pro and con, along with a rebuttal if necessary. If we're giving opinions we may want to attribute them. Let's certainly be sure that all assertions are properly sourced and neutrally-presented, per WP:BLP. But let's not just delete sourced material wholesale. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicle Herald only has a 7-day archive online. We need new references for a couples of sections, or remove that info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry... Bibcraft 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has now removed the Chronicle Herald material, which is probably for the best. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Approaching Vandalism.

Mr. Bibcraft has noted that the allegations about my inter-racial amours are utterly unsourced and should not appear in the article. He has also acknowledged that I have written: "The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews." He therefore appears to agree that accusations of Holocaust denial are unfounded. (I have also stated that my only doubt about the figure of six million victims is that I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally accepted estimates – four to six million – are the most accurate.)

Charges of interracial sex and Holocaust denial nevertheless keep appearing, in what is beginning to approach the level of vandalism. I understand Wikipedia can suspend the access privileges of vandals, and I request that this be done.

    Jared Taylor  68.227.194.12 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the Herald Chronicle articles being offline, I think we need to keep out controversial edits based on that source. I've restored the material that has better sources. Everyone needs to recall that WP:BLP applies here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The "better sourced" material links to an article in the American Renaissance news archive. A journalist tells me he thought I was "rattled" when asked about interracial relations. He adds, accurately, that I corrected him, saying I was "annoyed" (that professional journalists would sink so low as to ask about my sex life.) That is as far as the story goes. There is nothing in it to suggest "loss of composure," or an "angry response." Again, this kind of irresponsible "editing" amounts to vandalism.

Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 04:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I kept that article in part because it is hosted on AmRen. The journalist says "rattled" so it's appropriate to quote that line. I've editred the material to make it better match the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to label Jared Taylor's position on interracial relationships "hypocrisy" unless the editors can find some material proving so. With that being the case, charges of "hypocrisy" should be removed. Paleoconservativeone 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The American Renaissance link carrying Jared Taylor's own official statement regarding the Holocaust, and about his email exchange in the matter made public, seems entirely relevant to this discussion. It's removal is not warranted. Paleoconservativeone 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Paleoconservative. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While we should reference the statemnt, there's no need to carry it verbatim. We can summarize it in a line or two, and provide a link to the full statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

This is now clearly vandalism

This vandalism is becoming extremely tiresome. There is once again an allegation about my “intimate relationship” with someone I have never heard of. What is the source cited? This discussion page! Whoever is making these unfounded allegations should be denied access to Wikipedia.

There is considerably more of this article that is factually wrong, but the vandals appear determined to keep it that way. I note especially that someone keeps arguing that I “question the extent of the Holocaust.” I have said only that I do not have the specialized historical knowledge to judge which of several estimates of the death toll is most accurate. My own explanation has been repeatedly removed from this article. This is yet more vandalism, and I would like to know what the people who run Wikipedia plan to do about it.

Jared Taylor68.227.194.12 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jared; allegations were in fact made, and the article now states that these allegation were largely groundless. However the fact remains that allegations were made and these allegations were denied by you. Having this in Wikipedia is entirely appropriate.

Please see and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before re-adding this material. WP:BLP is official policy. Brimba 15:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that these charges should be part of the article. It is true that allegations have been made, but with no basis or corroboration. Someone promised "incontrovertible evidence," which has, of course, not been produced. If someone accuses me -- without any evidence -- of wife-beating or child molestation or racketeering, are these charges to become legitimate parts of this article as well?

Wikipedia's credibility is not served by repeating charges for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alabamawhiteman to Mr Taylor: firstly I have not touched the section about the Halifax incident. The allegation of "repeated harassment" is definitely not of my doing. About Holocaust 'denial' it is obvious, to anyone who has read the original debate on "inverted world", that you doubt the official version of the 'Holocaust' story - justifiably so in my opinion. Come on Mr Taylor - be honest. About Ms Akisada - I know, many others know and most of all you yourself know that the allegations made are one hundred percent true. The healthiest option for both yourself and more importantly our movement, would be to come clean on this aspect of your life and forswear forever more what were justifiably called non-white 'dalliances.'

To Alabamawhiteman: Is there any evidence to suggest Mr. Taylor has had a relationship with Ms. Akisada, or even that Ms. Akisada actually exists? If there is not, it should not be in Wikipedia. Read WP:VERIFY and reconsider whether this allegation should remain in this article. Eeaee 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the lady's email: yumi.akisada@gmail.com As a white man and a white nationalist, I am angered by the appalling way Jared has treated this woman. He is a spineless creep who has dishonored his wife, family and race.

Look, "Alabamawhiteman," you have not produced a shred of evidence that this women even exists, much less that I have ever met her. Not a shred. Did you invent this nonsense yourself, or did you hear it from someone else? If the latter, from whom did you hear it, and what was the aleged evidence? You should be ashamed of yourself for circulating this utterly groundless charge.

I stand behind the statement on the Holocaust that is on the AR web page. Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jared, I first heard rumors of your interracial trysts back in September last year. Personally I believe that Alabamawhiteman may well be on to something here. And yes the name Akisada has cropped up occasionally. However the allegations are not fully substantiated- so for now they do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Later on the situation may change. G Bathurst

To Mr. Bathurst: These allegations are not "fully substantiated." They are not substantiated at all. No one has produced *anything* that could be remotedly considered evidence, and this is because there is none to be produced. The name Akisada has cropped up, so far as I know, only in Wikipedia. At any rate, I appreciate your insistance that these charges not be included in the article, and I can assure you they will never be "substantiated." Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's all remember that this talk page is only here to allow us (Wikipedia editors) to discuss the article, not to discuss the subject. Though the subject is a participant in this discussion, let's avoid asking him to explain or defend himself, as this is neither a boxing ring nor a doctoral exam. We just want to get an article that's "good enough" to satisfy everbody, not an article that's so perfect it will solve the world's problems. Due to the structure and goals of Wikipedia, we need to focus on what's verifiable rather than what's "true". Finally, let's remember that this is a biography of a living person, so covered by Wikipedia's strict biographies of living people policy. All defamatory or disputed assertions should be well-sourced, and care should be given to the privacy of the subject's relatives. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research and mind reading

I have removed this section, I think, 3 or 4 times now because it violates WP policy on living persons:

Views on interracial relationships

In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Foo Man Chu or Whoopi Goldberg."

On March 8, 2007, Taylor was asked by a Canadian journalist whether he had ever been involved in an interracial relationship. Peter Duffy of the Halifax Chronicle Herald described Taylor's reaction: "That was the only time I saw you rattled; when that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled." Taylor said he was merely "annoyed", because he felt that questions about his personal life were beyond the pale. .

The two items have nothing to do with each other. Putting them together this way to draw a conclusion is original research. Besides that it is an invasion of his privacy to talk about his possible dating habits. That has nothing to do with his notability. The only people who think it is notable seem to be those who think that he should be even more racist than he is. (p.s. Both Tayor "making clear his feelings" and the reporter's opinion about him being "rattled" are mind reading.)Steve Dufour 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack article

I've nominated the article for deletion as an attack article. Taylor is notable, although a fairly minor figure. However, WP could get along without an article on him since this one seems to exist mainly for the purpose of attacking him. The attacks come, ironically enough, from people who are unhappy that he is not as racist as they think he should be. Steve Dufour 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting it outright may be a little too much right now, though it is worth bearing in mind. However, many parts could do with being rewritten. I have tried to make the article a bit more coherent, but it needs some more work. Eeaee 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From Jared Taylor: It would suit me fine to delete this article entirely for the reasons Mr. Dufour proposes. As an alternative, I understand that Wikipedia can lock articles. What about the possibility of including only facts about me that are undisputed -- background, books written, positions held -- and then locking it? I would consider it a blessing if the article were either eliminated or limited to the barest of facts. There are still, by the way, a number of assertions in the article that are not at all supported by the sources cited.

Jared Taylor 68.227.194.12 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mstrrce 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Jared: I don't think Wikipedia's job is to write biographical articles that satisfy only the wishes of the subject of the article. Of course you would be happy for the article to just present the bare-bone facts about yourself and your organization. But then the article would not be a biography befitting on encyclopedia- but rather just a portal into Amren and free advertising for your brand of 'white' nationalism. I agree that unsubstantiated rumors such as those concerning your interracial liasons have no place in a Wikipedia article - regardless of their actual verity.

However your views on miscegenation, your answer to a television journalist who questioned you on this matter are highly topical. And the description of yourself being 'rattled' comes from an impeccable source - your own website. The issue of miscegenation is perhaps the centrepiece issue of White Nationalism. Surely including your own views on this issue is completely appropriate. Thus I have restored this section to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrrce (talk • contribs)

• I don't have an issue with the first paragraph (assuming the source is acceptable, I haven't evaluated it yet), but the second one, what is the point attempting to be made? That he may have engaged in an interracial relationship? This is clearly a synthesis between the source in the first paragraph and the second source, which advances an implied position. This is clearly original research, and clearly prohibited in a BLP. It is probably also a violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm removing it, per WP:BLP. - Crockspot 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Taylor's statement was about his possible grandchildren. We can't say that it "makes clear his feelings" about all interracial relationships. Steve Dufour 12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I guess the blazing violation in the second paragraph was blinding me. - Crockspot 12:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Settle this here

I've protected the page so that the dispute can be settled here. Please remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. I suggest that folks propose drafts of what they'd like the section to cover. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be said about the issue. If something must be, then just say that some white nationalists think that Taylor is not white nationalist enough for them. Steve Dufour 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Taylor agrees: Let's settle this here.

Jared Taylor here.

First, I’d like to thank Will Beback for locking the article in its present state, thus keeping out the utterly unsubstantiated allegations about my amours.

This version is an improvement over many others. However, even if editors agree on what should be in the article, if it is ever unlocked, it will be subject to vandalism and tendentious editing. I would far prefer that this article be deleted and kept deleted. It has already caused a lot more bother for you and for me than any article should.

In the meantime, I will examine a number of errors, both of fact and of emphasis. These are in sequential order, not order of importance. My most *important point* is No. (7), “Views on the Holocaust.”

(1) First Sentence

The current first sentence says: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

No one really know what “racialist” means, so this sentence – although otherwise factually correct -- is not illuminating. The “source” given for this sentence never uses the word “racialist.” What are “racialist theories?” I would suggest the following:

<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who explores the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. >>

If that’s too bland, you could try:

<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of what he calls a “race-realist” perspective one the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

(2) “Works and Views.” Current first sentence:

<<He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which among other things argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which hypothesizes that multiracialism in the United States is the cause of many of todays social ills;>>

Both book descriptions are wrong; whoever wrote them did not read the books. I wrote the book about Japan when I was still a liberal on race and certainly did not argue “the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race.” On the contrary, I criticized the Japanese quite sharply for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness, and warned that they are not a good model for Americans.

Paved With Good Intentions was not about “multiracialism” and drew no conclusions about it per se. It was an extended critique of “racism” as an explanation for black social failure. The following would be correct descriptions of these two books:

<< He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which argued that Japan is not a good social model for the United States and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which argues that racism is not a convincing explanation for black social failure;>>

(3) The two following sentences are completely unrelated.

<< Taylor insists that he espouses a doctrine of race realism. In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.[3]>>

The first sentence is true; the second is wrong. There was such an interview, but you will search the cited transcript in vain for any such statement by myself. It is pure invention. If, for some reason, you want to cite that interview, you could say <<In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Mexican government officials actually brag that Mexicans are “reconquering” the Southwest United States.>> That, at least, is something I actually said.

(4) “White separatist.” The article contains the following sentence. <<He has described himself as a "racialist" and a "white separatist".>>

In the past, I have described myself as a “racialist,” but I no longer do so for reasons outlined in this discussion page above (see “Thanks to Will Beback . . . . “). Although I have seen a number of web pages that describe me as a “self-described white separatist,” I have no recollection of ever calling myself that. You will certainly not find that self-description in any of my written work. I’d like to know who it is who claims to have *heard* me describe myself that way. I suspect I have never called myself that, and I think that description should be removed.

(5) Here is another very muddled passage. <<Taylor says he is not a white supremacist, whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others. He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent. [5]>>

The first sentence is correct. But having just defined “white supremacy” as the desire to rule over others, would I be likely to say that Asians should rule over whites (“Asian supremacy”)? Let’s look at the source cited for the second sentence. It is a journalist describing a conversation with me as follows: “He dismissed the ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ accusations as empty epithets. If anything, he says he is a yellow supremacist because he believes Asians are genetically the smartest race, then whites, then blacks.” Therefore the sentence in the Wiki article is a paraphrase of a journalist’s paraphrase of my conversation with him--which, by the way, says nothing about “advanced humans (in evolutionary terms).” This is very sloppy work.

Why can’t the article refer to something I have actually done or said rather than paraphrase a paraphrase? It is relevant to note that I consider blacks superior to whites in some respects. I suggest the following:

<<Taylor has published arguments supporting the view that backs have a genetic superiority to other races in certain athletic endeavors. In response to charges of “white supremacy,” Taylor has written: “There is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ . . . . It is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.”

(6) More muddled thinking in the following passage:

<<Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.">>

I did write those words attributed to me, and they are some of the harshest I have ever written about blacks. That is why “anti-racists” like to quote them, and that is why they appear in Wikipedia--not because they are characteristic or representative. However the sentence with which they are introduced makes no sense. The sentence refers to blacks living entirely on their own, not living in a “civilized” society, or one not of their own making. As the quotation says, I am talking about blacks “left entirely to their own devices.”

If you insist that out of millions of words I have written about race, these are ones that Wikipdia feels compelled to include, you should leave out the first sentence. It only adds confusion.

(7) “Views on the Holocaust”

This section should not be in the article. I have never written for publication about the Holocaust nor lectured on it. It is not an area of special study for me at all. I have spent 20 years writing and lecturing about race. To have a section called “Views on the Holocaust” that is almost as long as “Works and Views” is completely wrong. Why is this section even here?

It is here only because someone who already disagrees with me about something else, has taken a single sentence I wrote and twisted it maliciously to say that I have suspicious “views on the Holocaust.” Obviously, in my one-line reply, I was writing about the six million figure, not whether the Holocaust occurred. I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally proposed victim totals of 4 to 6 million is most accurate.

I gave a single-line reply in a private e-mail message to an unknown sender, and suddenly I’m accused of Holocaust denial. Quite absurd, really. *At least* this section now has my denunciation of this charge as absurd and malicious. Many version of the article have removed this important point.

• If* this section is to remain, it must be balanced by the following addition:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” >>

My views in this respect are, in fact, *vastly* more significant than my one-line expression of ignorance about the Holocaust death total. You will find my views on Jewish participation sharply debated and attacked on many Internet pages.

(8) “Praise and Criticism”

To trot out David Duke as the first source of praise is obviously an attempt to discredit me, but when I checked the source, he seems to have said those words about me. At one point, someone had included praise of me from Samuel Francis, praise I far prefer to that of David Duke. Any reason why that can’t be included to balance David Duke? The text was:

<< The late paleoconservative, Samuel Francis, has written of Taylor, “What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers—not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed.” >>

(9) More “sympathy to Holocaust denial.” The following is in the article:

<<Other critics have described Taylor as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and have accused him of sympathy to Holocaust denial.>>

The sum total of “sympathy to Holocaust denial” of which I am aware is my one-line e-mail message quoted above. This does not bear repeating here.

(10) External Links

The link to the Color of Crime (the second of the links) is to the 1998 version. The link should be to the latest version, and should therefore be: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

(11) Possible Additions.

I realize, first of all, that editors of Wikipedia do not agree with my views on race. However, what is the purpose of this article: to caricature and discredit those views or to present an accurate, concise summary of them? Should direct quotations from me only be those selected by my critics? Surely not. If I have any reason to be in Wikipedia at all, it is *because* of the views I attempt to promote, *not* because of the way either critics or admirers characterize those views.

First, I repeat that my positions on Jews in general are extremely important, and include again the text from section (7) above:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” >>

Someone calling himself Boggs 1980 has written some good summaries of what I think.

What is wrong with including the following, which correctly quotes and summarizes my thinking?

<< Taylor compares racial solidarity to family loyalty: “Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin.” He adds that a preference for one’s own race in no way implies hostility to other races, just as the preference for one’s own children implies no hostility to the children of others. He claims it is a dangerous double standard to encourage non-whites to show racial solidarity and to work openly for group interests while condemning whites who do the same thing. >>

Or the following?

<< Taylor argues that race is not only a valid biological category but is an inevitable part of individual and group identity. He points to consistent racial self segregation—not only in America but around the world—as evidence that race is one of the most basic human fault lines, and a frequent source of conflict. Taylor argues that a preference for people like oneself is natural and even healthy, and that attempts to encourage or force racial integration are misguided. He believes it is impossible to build a society in which race can be made not to matter. >>

Again, these are central aspects of what is in fact a nuanced and carefully elaborated body of work. They deserve to be in an article that purports to be encyclopedic.

But again, I here express my preference that this article be eliminated completely – or, as I suggested earlier, limited only to the barest facts on publications and positions held – and then locked. If unlocked, there will only be more headaches.

Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Taylor notes fairly that the article is not ideal and that improvements can be made. I think that the reason for the poor quality of the article is that various statements have been added in the past which, while they are accurate and correctly sourced, do not necessarily improve the article as a balanced and impartial account of Mr. Taylor and, as Mr. Taylor notes, may have been added for purposes other than simply contributing impartial facts about him.

I think the main reason that the article has not been improved recently is that there have been issues with groundless statements being added to the article, and that these have had to be dealt with before other work on the article can be done. It makes no sense to contribute to an article if it is going to be reverted back to one with baseless statements very quickly.

As for deletion, I have had a look at the criteria for deletion, and the only one which one could apply here is notability, explained in WP:NOTE. It states that:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

The American Renaissance website has a [http://www.amren.com/inthenews/arinthenews.html page ] and a [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/ar_in_the_news/ list] which have links to coverage which Mr. Taylor has received in the press. Whether they constitute "significant coverage" is a matter for debate. The Wikipedia page on notability as applied to people WP:BIO does not (and probably could not) explicitly define how substantial independent coverage of the subject must be in order to be sufficiently notable for a subject.

Although it is not mentioned in the guide to deletion policy WP:DP, I am sympathetic to Mr. Taylor's request that the article be deleted. If a person does not want to appear in Wikipedia, why should he have to?

Eeaee 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If a person does not want to appear in Wikipedia, why should he have to? I think that is hardly the point. While Mr Taylor is a relatively minor figure in an overall national sense, within the white nationalist movement he is very well known (even though many true white nationalists would not consider him WN). The quality of any encyclopedia relates in part to its comprehensiveness. Wikipedia has articles on white nationalism, difference in intelligence among the races, and Holocaust revisionism. To have articles on these subjects without a reference to Jared Taylor will render the same articles in a sense incomplete. Deleting the article on Taylor would be be inconsistent with the fact that many people of far less renown than Taylor do rate a mention.

Personally I now undertake not to post details of Taylor's relationship with Ms Akisada, pending the allegations being verified by an independent and reliable source. I apologise to the editor (but certainly not to Taylor) for any inconvenience caused. However, to include Taylor's views on interracial relationships is I think entirely reasonable. After all, miscegenation is a pivotal issue to the WN movement. With respect to Holocaust revisionism I would ask readers here to peruse the relevant thread at inverted world. It should be obvious to most that Taylor initially signaled a disbelief in the Holocaust. It was only when he came under sustaied attack by Auster, Jobel and others that he pulled his head in and issued the statement on Amren stating belief in the Holocaust. Alabamawhiteman 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor here. "Alabamawhiteman" appears to be convinced I am a Holocaust disbeliever, despite my clear statements to the contrary. I believe Wikipedia has a word for this sort of thing: "mindreading."

As for the desirability of a Wikipedia article about me, it all depends on whether it is accurate and whether it can be protected from people like "Alabamawhiteman"--from whom I would still like an answer to an earlier question: Did you invent Akisada yourself or did someone else? If the latter, what was the "evidence" that has so firmly convinced you of her existence?

Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that, assuming there is verification that he is involved with a woman of another race, and adding to it his statements about interracial children, to juxtapose or synthesize thought between the two sources to "expose hypicrisy" or to advance any other position is still original research, unless a reliable secondary source makes these two observations, and points out the hypocrisy. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and when regarding the biography of a living person, also violates WP:BLP in a way that is blockable. - Crockspot 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Taylor is both prominent and controversial. Therefore, it would seem that he ought to have an entry in Wikipedia. However, it seems clear to me that his entry should be "bare bones" in terms of containing only incontrovertible facts, such as his background, books written, positions held, etc. There is no dirth of this information. Those seeking further information could be referred to one or both of his websites. The entry should then be locked. Gregraven 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gregraven's suggestion is probably the best in terms of dealing with the entry for Jared Taylor. People are passionately either for or against him. His entry will be changed daily as a result, and over everything. A locked and neutral site which features only the basic facts about Jared Taylor, as Gregraven proposes, seems to be the only viable option for an entry about him. Otherwise, the article should be shut down completely and Jared Taylor should not be covered by Wikipedia. Paleoconservativeone 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia's protection policy, and I believe the terms of the GDFL license, prevent us from permanently protecting the article. You guys are going to have to work this out in a calm manner, by building consensus, guided by policy and guidelines. When it is in a state that meets consensus, it must be maintained the old fashioned way, by watchlisting it and reverting vandalism. - Crockspot 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Excuse me, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not as a place for anyone to upload his CV– which is what some here seem to want for the benefit of Taylor. An encyclopedia biography should present a balanced, neutral point of view on the subject that includes the views of both admirers and critics. As Taylor is prominent and very well known figure in the racialist movement it behooves Wikipedia to include his biography. Not to do so would mean that the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia is somewhat negated. However even worse would be to have just an innocuous introduction to Taylor that would simply be a portal into his peculiar brand of ‘white’ nationalism.

About Holocaust denial, I suggest that the reader go directly to this link http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/

This is how the dialogue contained therein started: A certain Wayne Harris emailed Taylor asking him the simple question: I applaud your valiant defense of white civilization. However the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement.Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not? Taylor’s single line reply to Wayne Harris: I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked.

To anyone who is not extremely obtuse, Harris wishes to elicit Taylor’s opinion on whether or not the Nazis committed large-scale genocide against the Jews. Taylor consciously evades the purport of the question and answers in a way that the exact number of victims is all Mr Harris was interested in. If Taylor truly were a Holocaust believer he would have qualified his answer to make clear his belief in a major genocide.

Later on, Taylor, out of fear of endangering what he believes to be his ‘mainstream’ appeal changes his tune and issues that ridiculous statement on the Holocaust that is now on Amren.

Taylor – be a man and stick to your guns. Your craven attitude in the face of disapprobation from people of whose opinions should mean absolutely nothing to a true WN, is truly disgusting.

Taylor now goes even further in disavowing praise from David Duke. If David Duke, as America’s foremost WN, has anything to say about Taylor, surely it should be included in the article. Duke is famous to the same extent that Francis is obscure– and has contributed far more to WN causes for far longer than both Francis and Taylor put together. Again Taylor’s ignoble side is amply revealed by the contemptible way he treats Dr Duke.

It will of course be very difficult to verify Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisda in the way that Wikipedia requires. Obviously not many major media outlets will be interested in what Taylor calls his interracial amours.

However let me repeat here: all the allegations made with respect to Taylor’s relationship with Ms Akisada are one hundred percent true. These allegations are most certainly no invention of mine. I have seen evidence that leaves not a smidgen of doubt in my mind that what was alleged is true. And more importantly Taylor knows that the allegations are one hundred percent true. Answer this Taylor: why were you so obviously ‘rattled’ when questioned on this several months ago? And you were certainly doing more on your latest Japanese trip than just counting potholes –were you not?

However I will now desist from posting these allegations– at least until they can be verified in a way that meets Wikipedia’s requirements.

Alabamawhiteman 14:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor here. Yet more mind-reading nonsense from "Alabamawhiteman" about the Holocaust. And I ask for the third time: What evidence of Akisada have you seen or heard? Can't answer that question, can you? You are clearly prepared to believe utter nonsense out of pure hostility to me. It is because of credulous fanatics like you that any article about me should be protected from vandalism. If the last three letters in your tag mean anything at all, you will be apologizing to me some day.

Jared Taylor 72.254.0.201 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One month later and no reply from Alabamawhiteman. I believe you Americans use the maxim "put up or shut up", I think that this applies here. --Delos 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

white separatist

As Taylor pointed out, there is no source for him claiming to be a "white separatist". The source provided does not use the phrase. It needs to be removed, at least to the extent that it says it to be a self-identification, especially since he is posting here and claims not to self-identity as such. Bamafader 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor here. I quite agree, and thank you for bringing up this point. I have pointed out a number of other errors in the section called "Taylor Agrees." I would very much appreciate it if those changes could be made.

is this ever going to be unprotected?

It's been four months.P4k (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let's be mindful of WP:BLP as we edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.P4k (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Criticism Begins Again

Now that this article is unlocked, people are free to say any insubstantiated thing they like about me: That I have "praised" David Duke as a man of "strong views," that I associate with convicted kiddie porn afficionados, that I am likely to have had interracial sex.

This is exactly what I feard would happen if the article was unlocked.

Again, I request that this article be removed from Wikipedia, inasmuch as it is impossible for it be balanced or dispassionate. If not removed, it should be carefully edited by a Wikipedia staffer and then locked again.

It has become nothing but a playground for people who wish to attack me.

Jared Taylor68.227.194.12 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important that this article be free from any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. However, some of what was deleted appears to have been properly sourced:

• Taylor has argued that American support for Israel is the main reason for the 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York City. Taylor wrote "..they kill us because we support and finance a country they see as having been illegitimately carved out of the very flesh of their Islamic kinsmen."
  • Islamic militants have a grudge against us because of our attacks on Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and the Sudan. But the main reason they hate us and want to kill us is that we support Israel. Can anyone deny that if we were not Israel's enthusiastic backer those thousands of Americans would still be alive? ... If we fight Israel's enemies, the United States will become like Israel: a garrison state and battleground....But it is madness to invent false motives for them, to pretend we have done nothing to provoke them, and to launch a war for Israel that will only give yet more millions reasons to hate us. If that is our response to terror we will only ensure for ourselves yet more terror, yet more smoldering ruins and shattered lives. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/08/17404.html
• Taylor has derided the British for not following the advice of Adolf Hitler in shooting the leaders of the Indian independence movement. He also said, of the alleged affair between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten, that "No true daughter of empire would have dreamed of having it off with a native just as her husband, the final viceroy, was handing over the jewel in the imperial crown."
  • Adolph Hitler, rather more a Rhodes than a Ripon, once explained to then-Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, that the way to put down the Indian independence movement was to shoot Gandhi, and if that didn’t work, to keep shooting activists until the movement died out. The British did not shoot Gandhi, and India was independent a few years later. Perhaps Lady Mountbatten’s affair with Nehru is the best symbol of the change in mentality from “rule Britannia” to today’s limp-wristed “cool Britannia.” No true daughter of empire would have dreamed of having it off with a native just as her husband, the final viceroy, was handing over the jewel in the imperial crown. http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg06530.html
• Auster responded by saying that Taylor was allowing American Renaissance to be "a home to extreme anti-Semites."
  • So, as a result of Taylor’s refusal to draw a line against anti-Semitism as such, AR (or at least its online discussion forums) will doubtless continue to be a community rife with anti-Semitism, a community where anti-Semitic statements are routine and accepted. Also, as objectionable as the viciousness of the anti-Semitism on display in the discussion forum following Taylor’s article, is the deeply moronic quality of so much of it, like something emerging from a sub-humanity. Yet these are the people who see themselves as the defenders of our civilization. In another sad irony, many of the “pro-Jewish” commenters at AR do not seem to react to or even to notice the extreme anti-Semites among them; many of the “pro-Jews” seem to be as non-judgmental about Jew-hatred as Taylor himself. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005449.html
• In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Foo Man Chu or Whoopi Goldberg."
  • On aesthetic grounds alone we have reason to be outraged by what Mr. Chevènement says. I like the way our people look. I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Foo Man Chu or Whoopi Goldberg. I want them to look the way my people have looked for thousands of years, and for that I have no apology. Obviously, there is more to it than aesthetics. A nation is not just a cultural continuity, it is a biological continuity. The desire to see one's people survive and prosper is natural, healthy, and moral. Nor need it imply the slightest hostility towards other groups. http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/demog3.html

And so on. Removing improperly sourced material is fine. But removing properly sourced, neutraly presented material is inappropriate. Some of that you removed was sourced to blogs, and shouldn't be restored without better citations. But most should be restored unless it can be show to be incorrect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

====================

Will Beback's judgements are usually fair, but in this case I think he makes several mistakes. The passage I wrote about Hitler and Ghandi cannot be fairly described as "deriding" the British. I mention Hitler's advice and the fact that the British did not take it. I have never stated, and do not think, that the British should have *taken* Hitler's advice and shot Ghandi.

I have no objection to the quotation from me about Foo Man Chu and Whoopi Goldberg, which is accurate. However, that quotation is set up to be criticism by me of the *children* of interracial couples, as if I were somehow blaming the children. I do not blame the children nor their parents, for that matter. I am expressing my own preference, with the expectation that it is probably shared by my readers. As Mr. Beback also knows, this quotation from me has routinely been used to introduce allegations that I engage in interracial sex.

As for my views on the Holocaust, I agree entirely with the person below, who cannot see why such an entry is included in this article. I wrote one, private line on the subject, which has been twisted into something I certainly did not mean, and it now has a prominent place in the article. This is wholly inappropriate.

Finally, if my views on Jews are considererd important, as I have said many times before, the following passage should be included: Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.”

I suspect that article, now that it has been unlocked, will again become a vehicle for personal attacks against me.

Jared Taylor68.227.194.12 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial?

Having read and re-read this article, I cannot understand why this section of the Jared Taylor biography even exists for several important policy-related reasons.

First, there is the policy issue of undue weight. It would be understandable that this section existed if Jared Taylor is known for his anti-Semitism or (more importantly) finds himself being the subject of journalists who cover his alleged Holocaust denial. After all, Wikipedia is a terciary source that relies on publicly verifiable secondary sources that document subjects in a NPOV fashion. The fact is, after checking Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, Google News, and JSTOR I cannot find a single article in a reliable mainstream source that associates him with Holocaust denial. Furthermore, even the Anti-Defamation League does not accuse Taylor of such things. Right away, the alarm bells should start to sound based on those two facts and we should start scrutinizing a little more carefully what is and is not relevant for this biography.

I am not suggesting that inconvenient facts and criticisms found in reliable sources cannot be included in this article. I simply have not found them yet. As the section is written now, I think what we have is a clear violation of Wikipedia's undue weight policy in a living person's biography.

Second, speaking of biographies, there is the all-important policy points for writing biographies of living persons. Specifically, we are told to "do no harm." Is it harmful to create an entire section on Taylor's alleged "Holocaust denial" based on one journalist's question and Taylor's one-line response? To be honest, I think it is. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, there is also the policy issue of original synthesis. Arguably, the Holocaust Denial section is a violation of that issue, too. An editor takes certain primary source statement and molds them in such a way so the reader is led to conclude something that the original source material did not even conclude. That's a no-no, too. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was another point that I wanted to raise. Whoever wrote that section included an unsourced internet debate between (apparently) Lawrence Auster and Jared Taylor. Did journalists or academics write about this internet debate in a reliable secondary source? Apparently not. So why is it in this article? I don't understand. J Readings (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all the people with racialist views similar to Taylor's also have very strong views on the Jews and the Holocaust. Three interrelated issues form the centerpiece of the ideology of the white racialist right: 1. race differences and how race differences mean that multiracialism is doomed to failure 2. the dangers of the white race being 'miscegenated' out of existence 3. the role of the Jews in promoting multiracialism and attacking the white race. Holocaust denial is also part of 3.

The article as it currently stands discusses Taylor's attitude and views on each of these three issues - race differences, interracial relations and the role of the Jews, with about equal weighting and emphasis. I do not believe there is any undue weight leaning towards 3 at all.

Furthermore Taylor's views on anti-Semitism are clearly newsworthy. In 2006 the split between what one may call "jew-neutral" racialists and open anti-semitic racialists manifested itself at the biennial American Renaissance conference. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1095 http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/jews_and_americ.php

The debate over the role of the Jews spilled over into 2007 with a heated internet exchange clearly involving Taylor taking place here:http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/ Taylor also alluded to the debate in this statement posted on his website (in fairness to Taylor, this statement is mentioned in the main article and the internet link provided) The debate is written about at: http://kvetcher.jewschool.com/2007/08/09/jared-taylor-clarifies-holocaust-stance/

To include Taylor's views on the Jews and the Holocaust is entirely appropriate. Anyone interested in Taylor, the 'race realist' will also invariably want to know his stance on the Jews and Holcaust denial. Nmahon (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nmahon: I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, so it is not my intention to WP:BITE the newcomer. However, the sources you provide are actually blogs and email posts. They were not published by independent third-party sources. Also, it is fairly obvious that "inverted-world.com" and "The Kvetcher" ("jewschool?") are both partisan (not third-party) blogs without editorial oversight and fact checking. Therefore, they do not meet the "reliable sources" criteria. Indeed, the entire chat forum internet debate was not covered by reliable third-party sources as a quick check of Google News, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis makes clear, thus making it of questionable notability. As the verifiability policy also states, "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." The section needs to be removed to the talk page until we can find newspapers, magazines, or books that covered it. Otherwise, please understand: Wikipedia would be overrun with internet discussions and chat forum comments that new users may have found to be amusing. Also, the whole section needs to be removed because it borders on original research.

I am removing the whole section to the talk page for now. Following this, we can do one of two things. We can discuss any other sources that you might find that meet policies and guidelines per WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE (please read them carefully) and then maybe revisit this issue later, or we can request experienced disinterested editors who are not currently working on this article to review the evidence and offer comments. I am quite flexible on whichever path we take. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

In April 2007, a correspondent asked Taylor, "the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement. Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?" Taylor's one line reply: "I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked." Subsequent to this, Lawrence Auster learned of Taylor's statement on the issue and a heated Internet debate ensued. Taylor further posted on the Internet that he did not have an opinion on the six million figure, in the same way that he did not know how many people died in the Armenian massacres or how many American soldiers died during World War II. Auster (who has spoken at an American Renaissance conference sponsored by Taylor) and his supporters argued that such a stance was akin to Holocaust denial, and that this was not surprising given Taylor's close and longstanding friendship with Mark Weber, editor of the Holocaust-denial publication Journal of Historical Review and former editor of the neo-Nazi publication National Vanguard.

American Renaissance posted a response on the matter, with Taylor stating, "I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million", and "to imply that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Readings (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to first define what is Holocaust denial. If someone does not care about the events of WWII, is he automatically a Holocaust denier? Or if some says that not only jews but millions of other people died in WWII, is he a holocaust denier? And why is "Holocaust denial" a crime? When jews deny the role of their people in the Russian revolution, are they deniers, too? Should they go to jail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.129.70 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Views on interracial marriage?

I'm wondering why this section exists. Let's look at it carefully:

In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg."[12]

Okay, fair enough. Taylor has made this statement in numerous speeches and writings. (By the way, "Fu Manchu" was originally misspelled and I had to fix it).

On March 8, 2007, Taylor was asked by a Canadian journalist whether he had ever been involved in an interracial relationship. Peter Duffy of the Halifax Chronicle Herald described Taylor's reaction: "That was the only time I saw you rattled; when that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled." Taylor said he was merely "annoyed", because he felt that questions about his personal life were beyond the pale.[13]

Okay, why is this here? Mainly it's the opinion of a Canadian Journalist, not Taylor's. This has nothing to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage." What is the significance of it? Maybe if it was a close friend of Taylor's who said "That was the only time I saw you rattled," it might mean something, but not some journalist who saw him what? Maybe one or two times? Besides, I fail to see what this has to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage."

Taylor has praised the "high average level of attractiveness" of Japanese women, saying few resemble the "waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races."[14]

This is and out and out misstatement. If you will take the trouble to look at the original quote, you'll see that Taylor, in making the "waddling colossi" statement, was talking about the Japanese people *in general,* not Japanese women in particular, contrary to what that paragraph claimed. So that quotation is just plain misleading. And again, I don't understand why this is here. What does this have to do with Taylor's "views on interracial marriage?" The only thing I can figure is it's trying to imply something. I don't think innuendo has any place in an encyclopedia. Am I wrong?

I tried to insert some actual, substantial quotes from Taylor that might have something to do with this subject and give an actual feel for Taylor's beliefs and they were promptly deleted with the rationale that they were just "a plug for Taylor's views" Uh, excuse me, but is this not supposed to be a section on Taylor's views? I don't understand why innuendo is allowed but actual quotes from Taylor are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TimMagic. It's odd that some people think that Wikipedia is a kind of soapbox to engage in petty disputes, personal propaganda, or detailing original research. None of that has any place in an encyclopedia entry.

A few points are worth mentioning here:

• First, because this entry is fairly controversial, anyone editing it should understand that almost every sentence should be publicly verifiable from a reliable source. That means that blog entries are not acceptable.

• Second, it's best if editors start using the citation templates found here.

• Third, it's also a good idea to read Wikipedia's policies on writing biographies for living persons found here. Specifically, there is a section that discourages too much material being cited from self-published sources. I don't know if one can consider Jared Taylor's online magazine as "self-published" (that's something for the Reliable Source noticeboard to assess), but it is a good idea to focus more on mainstream newspapers, academic journals, and books put out by reputable publishers.

One last thing, please remember to sign your names after your comments using the four tildes ("~"). It makes it easier to follow the discussion. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sourced content (title refactored by User:Ramdrake)

Please stop reinserting superfluous passages, as well as NPOV language that I removed. Please read the preceding talk subheading. User:TimMagic asked, "Okay, why is this here?" Let me answer his question. Most of the section constituted filler, in order to justify having a separate section. The real reason for the separate section was to libel the subject.

Let's break it down: "Taylor praised the 'high average level of attractiveness' of Japanese women..." He did nothing of the sort. He wrote, "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."

So, the passage contained a fake "quote." The original passage follows, in greater context, so as to dispel any doubt that I might have misrepresented Taylor's words.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/01/in_praise_of_ho.php

"People

"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, with the same black hair, dark eyes, and olive skin. But there is a different and more pleasant homogeneity that goes beyond racial traits. Almost no Japanese are overweight, for example, and the occasional fatty is nothing like the waddling colossi one finds among the American lower classes of all races.

"Japanese also dress much better than Americans. There is a stylishness about them that seems to recoil from the baggy-shorts-and-T-shirt regimen common in America. If you see someone dressed like a bum, it is probably an American.

"Even in uniform, American police officers or TSA baggage screeners may be fat or sloppy-looking. Blacks and Hispanics, especially, often show a slouching kind of contempt for their jobs. Japanese bustling about in their trim uniforms almost never give this impression.

"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.

"At the same time, Japanese have a spirit of service and attentiveness that is rare in Americans. As in any country, levels of service vary with the price and elegance of the establishment, but Japanese almost never treat each other with the obvious indifference common in America. Japanese waiters or sales personnel hurry to help you, welcome you with smiles, and apologize for any inconvenience. Americans are surprised to find there is no tipping in Japan. Japanese rush to serve you because that is their job. In a way, they have no choice; Japanese consumers expect first-rate service, and will not patronize a store or restaurant that doesn’t give it."

Next, the passage about Taylor being "rattled."

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

"HE ORDERS the fish and chips; I settle for a cup of coffee.

"The waitress leaves with our order and Jared Taylor leans back, catching his breath.

"'The media scrum gave you a pretty rough time back there,' I remark.

"He shrugs and smiles.

“'That was the only time I saw you rattled,” I press him. 'When that TV reporter asked you whether you’d ever had gone out with a person of colour, you were rattled.'

“'I was annoyed,' he corrects. 'There are certain things I wouldn’t talk about, like my eating habits and my bowel habits.'”

The passage in the WP article had been cleaned up, so as to accurately represent the original article, but the question remains: What on earth is such a passage doing within a WP article? How is it encyclopedic? The answers are, in reverse order: It is not in the least encyclopedic, and the only reason it and the aforementioned passage were in the section, was as lead-ins to the baseless libel which was inserted in the article, complete with a fake link, as part of a vendetta. Remove the libel, and there is no reason for the rest, particularly the fraudulent "quote" about the supposed attractiveness of Japanese women. (I am not speaking for myself here. When I was single, I found many Japanese women very attractive, but any opinions I might once have had as to the beauty of women to whom I am not married have since been surgically removed.)

WP has had enough negative publicity, don'cha think? We don't need another Seigenthaler scandal. 24.90.201.232 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

However, these passages accurately reflect the sources they relay. They are sourced to what are reliable sources in the circumstances. There is no reason to leave them out.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I showed above, the first passage thoroughly misrepresents the source it claims to ‘relay.” And yet, you have insisted on reinserting a proven lie. The second passage is accurate, but not encyclopedic. Thus, there is no reason to leave in either section.

You are wikilawyering, in order to rationalize leaving in anything—no matter how dishonest—that casts the subject in a negative light, and censoring anything that casts him in a positive light. In other words, you are a textbook case of a POV warrior. I assumed good faith on your part, or I would not have wasted all that time making a case, which you completely ignored.

My God, man, you even censored and imposed your will on my section title! Have you no shame? 24.90.201.232 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the time to look up in the sources what was actually said, and I'm not finding that he's been misrepresented in anything he said. Please note that we're into reporting accurately what was said, not into whitewashing reality. As far as refactoring the title of this section, this talk page is about improving the article. I don't see how having my name as the title of a section helps improve the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the sentence is written. I believe the original sentence is not about inter racial marriage and makes Taylor look like a pervert. I changed it so the big idea of the piece is shown. Sorry for my bad english.

Unfortunately, that isn't what the source is saying. We must stick to what the source is saying.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jared Taylor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The article about Jared Taylor includes the following sentence: << Potok quotes Taylor as writing that African Americans are "crime-prone," "dissipated," "pathological" and "deviant." >> This sentence should not be included for two reasons, the most obvious being that Potok's references to me (this is Jared Taylor writing) are completely unsourced. Given that virtually everything I have ever written about race is on the Internet it would be easy to add hyperlinks to the passages Potok caims to be citing. Why has he not done that? I, myself, have no idea to what passages he is referring. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, "encyclopedic content must be verified." Where'es the verification? Assuming that I actually used the words "dissipated" or "pathological" in connection with blacks, the reader has no idea what I meant. Was I writing about a particular black person, some black people, all black people? The implication is that I think all blacks are "deviant" or "dissipated," which I most certainly do not. For these reasons, therefore, this sentence should be removed permanently from the article about me. The charges it makes are unsourced, and what it implies about my views of blacks is wrong and deceptive. 68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Jared Taylor68.227.194.12 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (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)

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)

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)

Fixed (I think) 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the source. Because the quotes come from a statement by Taylor covered by no independent sources, I think it's best to keep them out. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I give up

I hereby wash my hands of this page; there's no point when it's so full of blantant trolling. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• he is my hero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.193.170 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo versus Volunteer Marek

Re [7]. I'm sorry but just because "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that is or can serve as a forum for propagation of racist ideas. Usually the defense that some kind of junk should be included in an article because "Wikipedia is not censored" is a pretty good sign that the junk being pushed for inclusion is in fact junk.

Some specific examples in this particular context:

• The text explanations for the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly black people, in Western countries - has obvious racist overtones. You know those problematic non-whites, particularly black people. Come on. This just needs to be removed.
• The text beginning with On the greater number of non-whites... is source to the (racist) American Renaissance magazine, which in this case is a self-published source. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. See WP:RS. It's fine to include AR to source info on how the journal describes itself - and I've left those instances in the article - but it is not fine to try and present commentary from the magazine as fact.
• The text beginning with In January 2005, Taylor reviewed a book by Frank Salter, ... - ditto. Unless this review has been discussed in other, independent sources, there's no reason for it being here.
• The text beginning with Conservative writer and activist David Horowitz makes it clear that he disagrees with Taylor's philosophy, which he calls a "surrender to a multicultural miasma"... - 1) this is a dead link, and cannot be verified. 2) I'm not really sure if Horowitz's or FP's opinion is all that important here.
• The text beginning with Paul Gottfried, professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College, also disagrees with what he calls "the value of white nationalism," but writes: "I... - again, sourced to AmRen. Need an independent outside source.
• The text beginning with Taylor's fellow VDARE.com writer Steve Sailer, .... Who cares what Sailer thinks? He is not a reliable source, and we certainly shouldn't be providing a platform for these kinds of view by giving him a large block quote.
• The text beginning with Noted author and columnist Jim Goad has written in a review of Taylor's White Identity... - while there may have been a time when Goad was actually funny (and maybe even insightful) we probably want to include opinions of mainstream writers here.

Don't use "Wikipedia is not censored" as an excuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In return, don't use WP:RS as a cover for your severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your shoddy editing and gutting of sourced material has left the article in worse shape than before you chopped out what you believe to be inappropriate. Did you even read the article aloud after you chopped it? Some places don't even make full sentences anymore. That is why I accuse (present tense) you of censorship-in your haste you are sloppy.

For the record, the sources are not the best, and individually, case-by-case this can be weeded properly. I say properly because your language and tone suggest you are not impartial here. This article was a hatchet piece before-the articles on Nixon and Stalin are much more able to look at both angles. The editor who tried to add in balance was at least working in good faith-are you? At any rate I have requested 3O as I do not believe there is impartiality to be found in an editor who starts a talkpage header calling out another's username. Let's get someone else to have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jared Taylor and have no particular involvement with the editors in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Disclaimer: I have had some previous interaction with Kintetsubuffalo at Talk:TPR Storytelling, but I believe this is minor and that it won't bias my opinions here. Hmm, this is a tricky one. Contentious subject; two well-established editors. This looks like it will need careful treatment. However, the first thing I notice is that for a dispute, it hasn't been, well... disputed very much. All I see are the two comments here and a few edit summaries, which doesn't really make a discussion. At the moment, if I gave an opinion on the content of the dispute in any detail, then it would basically just become a dialogue between me and Volunteer Marek. Kintetsubuffalo, could you comment on the specific things that you aren't agreeing with? If necessary, I will act as a neutral party to make sure we keep the discussion focused on content and not on each other.—— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick note/response to Kintetsbuffalo (I actually didn't see that this went to 3O but I'm glad it did) - Some places don't even make full sentences anymore. - if you can point out any such places then I will be happy to fix it. This however is basically a style issue, not a content issue - grammar, spelling, style can and should be fixed. But fixing grammar, spelling, and style should not be used as a cover for introducing unreliable material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And if we're gonna do this on case by case basis, then I'm glad you agree that "sources are not the best" - so, are you fine with AT LEAST removing the statements/links to American Renaissance? That really should have no place in a serious encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think enough time has passed that it looks like we might not hear from Kintetsubuffalo about this. (I did leave a message on his talk page about it, so he should know there has been a 3O response.) I do have a few thoughts on the situation; I think I'll start a new section below, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Balance in the lead

I think the neutrality of the lead is a problem. At the moment we have a sentence that says "Taylor's views have generally been described as racist by academics, political commentators, journalists, and various other organizations." This is not in itself a problem if it is well sourced, although I think the quality of the sourcing does not support such a bold statement at the moment. More importantly, there are no views presented of any contrary opinions, which is a must for satisfying WP:NPOV. I have not researched this, but such views must exist, even if the only contrary view is Taylor's himself. Is anyone aware of other views that we may include? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV - it is not at all necessary to present views to the contrary, if those views only come from fringe sources (and Taylor himself would probably qualify as such, though I guess there's some point in letting him self-describe here). In particular this section of the NPOV policy makes that clear: Giving equal validity. This whole "on the one hand, on the other hand" does not ensure NPOV - in fact it CAN be POV itself - on topics such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Marek is right. NPOV does not require an opposing view to be included for every partial view given, it only requires notable opposing views to be given space according to their relative prominence in reliable sources. The article does devote a large amount to Taylors own views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I wasn't suggesting that we include every fringe view in the lead, just notable views according to their prominence in reliable sources, as you say. It just seems odd to me that the only notable viewpoint present in the sources is that he is racist. Surely he must have refuted these allegations somewhere? That would seem to be notable enough to me. Also, in the version Kintetsubuffalo preferred we have a whole section on "praise", and though much of it is double-edged, none of it seems to have found its way to the lead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead clarly states his own view on the racism allegations - it even gives his own view before the accusationof racism is mentioned - he considers himself to be a "race realist" (which a majority view would indeed classify as a euphemism for racist)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In this source (The Crisis in New Orleans: Viewed by a Biological Racist J Taylor - The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2005 - The JBHE Foundation) he even uses the word "racist" about himself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a little look for sources, and found this from Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America. From the book: "Taylor himself strenuously rejects the racist label and claims that his views on race and nationality are moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America's past." This seems to fit the criteria of inclusion to me. I want to stress that neither I, nor Swain, the author of the book, are trying to defend Taylor's views. Rather, I think we should present the readers with all the relevant facts and let them decide for themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit more background reading on this now, and I see that the "praise" section was a lot more questionable than I initially thought. We can definitely do better than sourcing praise about him to websites like VDARE without qualifying their nature. For now, I think I'll just add in Taylor's personal refutation of the racism accusations, and we can work from there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the sentence about race was removed by Volunteer Marek anyway. Hmm, that's probably for the best. Really we should have more reliable sources in the body before dealing with the lead anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I see this was done by Dezidor, not Marek, and that it was put into the "views" section, not removed. I also think that this is better than having it in the lead though - good move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for the efficacy of third opinions

Alright, this is starting to piss me off. I got reverted yet again, without explanation and this time the user in question User:Dezidor even had the nerve to call my edits "vandalism". To make it plain clear:

1. Text sourced to racist magazines has no place in Wikipedia. Do not restore this text or links to these sources.

2. If you're gonna revert people, have the common courtesy to:

a. Read the talk page first

b. Discuss your edits on the talk page

c. Consult the third opinion as given

3. NPOV requires that we use notable reliable sources. We shouldn't use other extremists (like Sailer) or little known writers (like Goad). I've already said this, there has been no response.

4. Don't restore text into the lede which reads like textbook racism by presuming that "there are problems associated with Black people". I mean what the fuck? What is this, WikiStormfrontpedia?

I'm sorry but I am going to revert this, again, and I strongly suggest that people start using the talk page. Also don't label other people's edits as vandalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Praise" section

This has been re-added by Dezidor, but we should really talk about this before edit-warring over it. Dezidor, do you have any arguments against Volunteer Marek's points here? I agree with him that we can't source things to American Renaissance, and I also think we should be very careful with our wording when sourcing praise about him by people like Steve Sailer. I'm afraid you need to contribute to the discussion if you want to keep this material in. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What Volunteer Marek wrote are not arguments but personal feelings and comments like Who cares what Sailer thinks? There is no reason to think that what Sailer and VDARE think is less or more important than what Potok and SPLC think. There is no reason to think the sources that he calls "racist" are less or more reliable than sources that are "anti-racist". --Dezidor (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a ton of difference between Potok and SPLC on one hand, and Sailer and VDARE on the other. For starters, the first are reliable sources, the second are not. Sailer and VDARE violate WP:FRINGE. Presenting their opinions in this article is simply WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing political advocacy groups like SPLC are not more reliable than anti-immigration VDARE or another notable conservative sources.They just share different political views. Some people just like left wing politics and some right wing identity politics. Endlessly repeating charges of racism are not a form of debate, but they are ment to silence debate and exclude staments and sources that some people do not politically like. Your claim that Sailer is "fringe" is your unsourced personal feeling. I read that he wrote for The American Conservative, National Review, VDARE.com and Sailer's work frequently appears at Taki's Magazine[12] and Alternative Right,[13] while Sailer's analyses have been cited by newspapers such as The Washington Times,[14] The New York Times,[15] the San Francisco Chronicle and The Times of London. He looks like notable non-fringe right-wing voice. --Dezidor (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the "criticism" and "praise" sections into one "reception" section. This should stop this discussion from becoming an all-or-nothing "praise" or "no praise". We can go through each of the paragraphs on their merits. I'm open to changing the section title, as it should be about reception of Taylor's views rather than reception of him as a person. (I did think of "reception of Taylor's views", but that seemed a little too long.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one section is better, there are also opinion "between" decidedly negative and positive. It should be both about reception of Taylor's views and reception of him as a person. This is biography. --Dezidor (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the section title, and I'm fine with including "positive" reviews as long as they're from reliable, non-fringe sources. I'd put Derbyshire in as a non-fringe source - though probably not as non-fringe as the SPLC on the other side of the issue. So I've left him. Horowitz may also fit the bill, but we simply cannot use anything cited to American Renaissance. If you can find statements from Horowitz about Taylor in a mainstream source then that could be included. Lastly, Jim Goad is simply not notable - and also fringe, albeit in a different way - enough to include here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)