Talk:Jared Taylor

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

Jared Taylor is NOT part of a "white supremacist movement"[edit]

Who is in control of this article? Can you tell me which "white supremacist movement" Mr. Taylor belongs to?? He simply wants white people to be able to pursue their own destiny and to be able to voluntarily segregate if they want to. You need to prove to the readers that he is a white supremacist in order to keep that in this article. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one person controls any articles. And the "proof" can be found in the citations. You can find them by clicking the superscript bracketed numbers (e.g, [2]) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read those "citations". Just because the New York Times and Washington Post called him a white supremacist, that makes it true? Are you joking? Again, where is the proof? He makes it clear in all of his speeches where that subject comes up that he "does not wish to rule over other races". Can you please link me to any actual evidence? As for this article, yes someone or some group owns it. Unlike normal articles where anyone can make changes, this one is locked. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far left newspapers are obviously going to call people like Jared Taylor a "white supremacist". This is not proof of anything. I need an audio clip or video of Jared Taylor incriminating himself by saying or doing something that fits the definition of white supremacy. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, if YOU need it then I guess we'll just have to satisfy you... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me. The person (or people) responsible for adding the references to white supremacy in this article are misinforming ALL of the readers about Jared Taylor. Just because a far-left newspaper says he's a white supremacist doesn't make him one. There needs to be evidence or else this article contains misinformation, as the claim is only a hunch (at best). 99.6.61.222 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would violate wp:or, we do not check sources for accuracy, we assume that is they are RS they have done the fact-checking themselves. This is called wp:policy, and if you wish to change that this talk page of not the venue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He simply wants white people to be able to pursue their own destiny and to be able to voluntarily segregate if they want to. " Which is one of several forms of white supremacist language. "We white people need to get away from the dirty dregs of everyone else." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain power users who control these articles, and it can be seen by simply scan-reading the "view history" section of articles such as this, and looking for the usernames that frequently appear in these same kind of articles. Several such names in the history of this article are "Grayfell" and "Gorillawarfare" and "Slatersteven". They will appear ad nauseum in padlocked articles about topics such as this, and it is the case that over many years they have climbed the hierarchy of Wikipedia to get in a position where they can control these padlocked articles.220.245.249.73 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh -- and I bet all these "power users" are Jews, too!! (Am I doing it right?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you're doing is just attempting to hand-wave away his astute observation. I've noticed the same things, interestingly, regarding these same 3 editors. They are *all* over any pages where the culture war, politics and/or race intersect, whether it's about a subject, or as in this page, a person. They control the narrative on these pages to align with their political views. They have the ability to do this because they are terminally online and have spent an immense amount of time on this website thereby gradually gaining special privileges that normal visitors don't have. The co-founder of this website Larry Sanger has also observed this phenomenon and discussed it. 2601:18C:8201:5110:85C8:1232:25AF:8A89 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:agf and wp:NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whites pursuing their own destiny? What you're writing about is segregation! Would it settle your George Wallace typing fingers if the article wrote as "he has been widely seen as a white supremacist"? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:9DFE:8FDA:B457:6A00 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what RS say, NOr do we have to prove anything, RS are enough.Slatersteven (talk)


OK lets play a game

Source for White supremacists

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/jared-taylor

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-supremacists.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/09/call-me-a-racist-but-dont-say-im-a-buddhist-meet-the-alt-right

Your turn

Sources saying he is not a white supremacist

Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can call anyone anything, just like in THIS wp article. That doesn't make it true. We all know our media is biased. As for your Richard Spencer article, show me where TAYLOR wants to work for/with Spencer. Show me where he agreed. I doesn't matter what Spencer said.
Consider this scenario: Newspaper X calls Mr. Smith a domestic terrorist. Website Y cites X and uses that as evidence and so it claims it's true. Website Z cites Y. When asked, Newspaper X cites Y and Z. It's all a bunch of hearsay and everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. Unless there is evidence that Mr. Smith committed domestic terrorism OR a recording of Smith admitting he is a terrorist, the claim is unsound. It doesn't mean it's TRUE but it doesn't mean it's FALSE either. However, saying something of this magnitude is true really is libel unless it can be proven. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no then, you do not have one source that contests this, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Joe, you stole $1000 out of the cash register." "No, I didn't! Was the camera on? Look at the footage" "No, no footage but I know you did it." "Prove it." "So you did it then because you can't show me ONE shred of evidence that you DIDN'T do it."
^^^^
Same thing. I can't prove he's not a white supremacist just as you can't prove he is. So, when in doubt, WP shouldn't mention it.
I'm done too though. End of story. Keep up the good libelous work :) 99.6.61.222 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Atkins, S.E. (2011). Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-59884-351-4. Retrieved August 14, 2023. Moxy- 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because these guys won't link an article calling a left-leaning person a communist from a far-right publication but they'll do the opposite with a far-left one. Perhaps cite political scientists instead of politically partisan news sources (Fox News, The Independent, The Guardian) of either political persuasion. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:F4EF:4C52:1DF:8D65 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading and you'll understand. When the co-founders of wikipedia call out the websites liberal bias you know you have an obvious problem. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:F4EF:4C52:1DF:8D65 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clealry I do not know what you are talking about, as I have no idea what "far-left" news media you think we are using. Nor what far-right sources we are not letting people use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just cited three, the levels of dishonesty from wikipedians such as yourself is quite staggering. I won't be replying as you are quite obviously bad faith. My argument still stands, use political scientists and academics instead of politically partisan news outlets. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:7960:23A1:8CD8:46C1 (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not for them being far-left, that is your opinion. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/17715-how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2017%2F03%2F07%2Fhow-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers, so of the ones listed only the Guardian comes even close to being even left wing and one is right of center. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2023[edit]

Remove white supremacist from the inlead and elsewhere in the writing. To suggest this is to state clearly that Wikipedia is biased against someone that writes and forestands European Worths and Folk's, not someone that thinks whitefolk are racially above everyone else and should govern as such! 95.129.31.2 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke reference[edit]

in the antisemitism section david duke is identified as 'an antisemitic conspiracy theorist' but he's far better known as the former grand wizard of the KKK. surely that should be what he's referred to as? Minty420 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how they are not synonymous. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of agree. I think of David Duke and I think of two things: former KKK guy and his run for governor in Louisiana (in '92 IIRC). Of course, one of the challenges of editing here is saying for sure what a guy/gal is best known for (unless there is RS specifically saying it).Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Taylor&oldid=1215649961"