Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023

Richard Spencer is a Far Left White Supremacist, not Far Right. He was celebrated on The View for Endorsing Joe Biden.

Thanks 2600:1001:B019:A431:51E6:CDE6:C9D4:D7FD (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the reliable sources disagree with your assertion. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him "far-left" but the article does give a misleading impression of his views, which have changed a lot since most of the articles it cites were written. But you can't cite his personal tweets or articles so there's nothing within the rules that can be done.HangingChad13 (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead section is seriously outdated

The lead section of this article is very outdated, as Spencer has fully distanced himself from the alt-right, and has not held any public speakings on behalf of them for years. This is not very widely known as he has lost a lot of popularity in recent years and thus doesn’t get as much media coverage anymore, but just by looking at his Twitter one will find that he despises the alt-right these days.

This article as a whole is actually very outdated, he has changed on a lot of positions. Torbslifre (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

We need sources that say this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t the words coming directly from his mouth via his tweets considered a source? Anyway, there are many RS sources that have discussed it, such as this one: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/08/11/unite-right-5-years-later-where-are-they-now Torbslifre (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No his own words would not be after all I can say all kinds of things about me (I am sexy, I am rich, I tell a dam good knock knock joke) none of which are true. As to SPLC, it does not say he is no longer alt-right, it says he says he is no longer alt-right. It does however say "Spencer continues to operate the web-based publication Radix Journal, which SPLC listed as white nationalist in 2021.", an indication they may not believe him. Nor does he say he is not alt-right just that he pulled back from the movement, not its beliefs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Eh there’s quite a large difference between a person talking about their politicial beliefs and a person making false statements about their looks and wealth. But beside that… He has pulled back from the alt-right movement, as you say, so why does the lead section of the article say he is a public speaker and activist on behalf of said movement? This should be removed or changed, as he distanced himself from the movement and hasn’t been an activist or speaker on behalf of them for years. He does activism against them now. Torbslifre (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Show us the reliable WP:SECONDARY sources saying so and we will discuss this. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

He can still belive in its values, even if he does not actively participate anymore. And (as said) we need RS saying he no longer is active, not that he claims to no longer be active. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

if he does not actively participate in a movement anymore, he is by definition not a current activist for said movement. Which this Wikipedia article states he is in the lead section. Even though sources don't expliclity state that he no longer does activism or supports the movement, this is quite clear from his own words and ACTIONS. You will not find many sources discussing it, because there is simply nothing to discuss, as he is not doing any of the stuff he used to do. He has done no speakings or other activism for that movement in 5 years. Wikipedia has its own policies on this, that if a thing someone is associated with does not happen for a certain period of time, it will be considered a thing of the past, and this article should reflect that. Torbslifre (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

One thing worth adding to the conversation is that Wikipedia takes a historical view on things, so we are interested in what the subject has been most notable for throughout the course of his life, not what he is doing currently. If he gets a job at McDonald's, we won't change the lead sentence to "Richard B. Spencer is a service worker at a McDonald's in Virginia". The sources we have talk about his alt-right activity.

If you can give secondary sources that talk about Spencer having changed, wording changes are possible, but his legacy is still that of a neo-Nazi. — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

yeah, but legacy is still different to current occupation. My issue is just with the way the lead is phrased, that he IS doing this and that, when in reality it is something he has done in the past. I'm not saying his work as an activist and speaker should be replaced by anything in the article, McDonalds worker or whatever, just that it should be changed to past tense in some way. Even though that legacy will greatly outshadow anything else he'll ever do, that still doesn't mean he's currenty doing it. It's currently stated like this: he *is* a public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement. I think it should be changed to something along the lines of: he *was* a public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement. or he is known for having been a prominent public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement. It could maybe even mention the period he was doing it, from around 2016 to 2017. My main issue is just that the I find the current description, with the use of is, to be wrong. Torbslifre (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against changes like those in theory, but in practice I agree with Slatersteven's analysis of the SPLC source and you've not provided any others, so I'm left wondering on what grounds we can claim or imply that Spencer is not an alt-right activist today. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm primarily basing it on the stuff he himself has said in recent years (on twitter for the most part), and the fact that he hasn't done any activism/speaches for the Alt-right in years. Here's a source that explains some of it: https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-maga-1527141 if you want me to link any specific tweets I can do that also, but I assume that is not RS. Torbslifre (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not a good source, no, and see WP:RSP on Newsweek. The source you give opens by describing Spencer as a white nationalist.

The dangers of taking a (former/current) neo-Nazi at their word should be self-evident. Was Hitler a socialist? — Bilorv (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, Even if we accept this source,. It's not excatly saying he has changed, only that he says he has changed. At best we could say "spent claims to have left the alt-right movement", but even that is not enough to say he is no longer a " neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist". As none of those are in fact occupations, they are positions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is not something I'm trying to claim either, my point was purely meant to be about his position in the alt-right movement. Anything else, such as him being a neo-Nazi etc, is kind of irrelevant here, and I'm not saying he has changed on those positions. I'm only talking about the alt-right movement itself, which he has left. And I agree that we shouldn't be taking people at their word, we also have to look at their actions. And the actions back his statement up. He hasn't done any activism or speakings for the movement in 5 years, and he regularly speaks out against the movement nowadays. Also, if we can't include something simply based on a person saying it, then this entire wikipedia article has to be written, because it is already filled with many of his own direct statements and quotes. Having all of that already included shows that Wikipedia trusts his own word to an extent, so I don't understand why some things are included and others are omitted, especially considering the consequential nature of the specific point I'm trying to raise. Torbslifre (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't say something someone said about themselves if it can be seen as unduly self-serving. We can say what others have said about them. Now I agree we can quote him, we can't use him for that being true. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so it should be written in that sense. My suggestion is that the line He is a public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement. should be changed to something along the lines of He has been a prominent public speaker and activist on behalf of the alt-right movement, but claims to have distanced himself from the movement in recent years. This makes clear that the information is based on his own claim, and not stated as fact. Torbslifre (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is he is still called part of the alt-right, and still gives speeches. This https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/09/richard-spencer-racist-putz-is-having-a-lousy-labor-day-weekend also may shed light on why he did this. and comments like "So be patient. We'll have another day in the sun. We need to recover and return in a new form." imply (if not outright makes it clear) this is not some heartfelt change of...heart, but a purely tactical move. In fact we can't give this the nuance it needs in the lede, so shous leave it unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Absent secondary sourcing saying the situation has changed, we wouldn't report it as changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting it from that he still does speeches for them, he hasn't in the last 5 years. And it doesn't really matter what the reason behind his decision to leave is, whether its a tactial move or a heartfelt change of heart. An action is an action, regardless of the reason behind it. Anyway, this is why I said that if there was to be a change in the article, it should be presented in a very clear way that it is coming from his own claim, and not stated as fact. Torbslifre (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

An action may be an action, but until an RS says it is, it is only his word, Vs what RS say. Until an RS says it is, it is not an action it is a claim. The fact he said "So be patient. We'll have another day in the sun. We need to recover and return in a new form." proves he is still speaking. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I still think something should be written about it under the category Alt-Right leader at least, if not in the lead section. He can't really be called the Alt-Right leader anymore, as he has enjoyed a much more laid back lifestyle in recent years, and the movement in general has greatly declined since its peak, or moved into new forms (Fuentes et al), where he is not involved. Torbslifre (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Has he resigned from AltRight Corporation? or the National Policy Institute? Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the AltRight Corporation, but he did say that he abandoned the National Policy Institute. That think tank hardly does anything anymore as far as I'm aware, more on that here: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/01/10/once-political-force-richard-spencer-and-national-policy-institute-go-quiet Anyway, can I ask why Matthew Heimbach's wikipedia page follows such a different format than this one? I have been told that we cannot use information about Spencer coming from his own mouth, but Matthew Heimbach's page is filled with such information in the lead. It talks about his own claims and what he himself identifies as. I find it odd that we're seemingly following different rules here. Torbslifre (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The PRA source of the Matthew Heimbach article focuses entirely on debunking his self-identification and goes as far to call it "image laundering", contrary to how the lead misrepresents it. It does look as if that article has been edited to rebrand Heimbach without considering its own sources. WinogradSchema (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

[1]https://politicalresearch.org/2022/05/11/can-you-ever-trust-former-white-nationalist WinogradSchema (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the source in the Heimbach article which I removed along with the contradictory text you pointed to. It argues that Heimbach's rebranding is disingenuous and used to justify the same WN ideas. WinogradSchema (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, I do not watch that page, you need to ask them. And we need RS saying "he abandoned the National Policy Institute". There may be many reasons, and no one has said we can't say he denies being alt-right, just that what he says can't be used to overturn what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think what you're missing, Torbslifre, is the subtle difference between a subject saying X and a reliable source saying "the subject said X". The latter shows that a reliable source thought it worthy of comment that the subject said X. The problem is not verifiability, but due weight: should we choose this fact out of millions of possible facts to mention in the article? To look at why an article does or does not say something, you need to look at the references.

However, most Wikipedia articles are in need of huge overhauling for quality improvement, and one factor in this is a chronic shortage of volunteers, so I would make no assumptions that Matthew Heimbach is in any sort of state to be emulated. — Bilorv (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think my points have adhered to that difference. All of the Spencer statements I've posted have been through sources, such as the SPLC and Newsweek (I'm aware of WP:RSP on Newsweek), so sources obviously have found it worthy of comment. I agree that they are minority views based on the Wikipedia due weight principle, but that just has to do with the fact that he has received less fame in recent years, and major outlets are thus less likely to report on his statements nowadays. If we were to take a sample of articles out of the last few years, instead of basing it on everything ever said and written about him, you would probably find these new views to be represented in a large part of the articles. And to touch on Heimbach once again, I think we can all see the clear inconsistencies in the way that article is structured compared to this one, in regards to claims and personal identifications, which I found weird considering the similar nature of these two people. Torbslifre (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

So then we can say (say at the end of the lede) something like "but he has claimed to no longer be an active part of the art-right movement", but that is the best we can do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I also think this article just lacks a lot of information about what he's been doing in recent years in general. There's very little after 2017 or so. I suggest a paragraph at the end of the lead along these lines: Spencer enjoyed the peak of his fame in 2017, having enjoyed a more laid-back lifestyle in the years following. He claims to no longer be an active part of the alt-right movement. He launched the web-based white nationalist publication Radix Journal in 2021, which holds many of the same viewpoints of the alt-right movement Spencer claims to have left. Torbslifre (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Content shouldn't go in the lead until it is part of the body, as the lead is a summary of the body, and nobody is stopping you from adding reliably sourced content to the body about Radix Journal (although we say in the article that the journal was founded in 2012 with this source). In general, you should solve problems you find directly rather than starting discussion: this is the philosophy of "be bold". You will get reverted often if you do this (reverts aren't meant as a personal slight), and then that's when discussion comes into it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)