Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Renaissance (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy POV, weasels etc.[edit]

And e.g. guilt by association: 

have attended American Renaissance conferences and have been seen talking with Taylor...

Many e.g. US politicians willingly met with despots, murderers and worse. They shook hands and discussed policies and provided weapons. So? Argumentum ad hitlerum. Zezen (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Supremacy" is Inaccurate[edit]

I think we need a higher standard when using effectively-pejorative socially-disqualifying terms such as "white supremacist" and for politically charged topics such as this. At least, the standard should be very high for the first-sentence summary. From everything I've come across, Jared Taylor consistently argues against the concept of supremacy; he points out evidence of differences across races and of large-scale social and material consequences of differences, and he highlights the persistence of and advocates for the legitimacy of racial preference within a framework of freedom of association (and politically determined immigration policies). For many people, his own preference seems to be too close to "supremacy" for them to recognize the distinction. But I think this article's authors should be careful to be accurate and nuanced with such a politically and socially charged issue. In fact, I think the term "white supremacist" is particularly inaccurate because, if the term "supremacy" can be used at all, more appropriate terms would be "Asian supremacist", or more finely, "Jewish supremacist", since the data that AmRen presents nearly always puts Asians and Jews in what some people assume to be the "superior" end of the spectrum, with "Whites" or "Caucasians" in the middle of the spectrum.

What are the standards used when dealing with the most volatile topics? When words are used not to communicate precise information but to shunt people's minds into common pathways of "acceptable" and "unacceptable"? When words are used as political weapons? (For example, if I find many quotes from mainstream media that claim that Julian Assange is "guilty of treason", should I lead the article on Julian Assange by labeling him "treasonist" in the first sentence?) I think this topic is extremely important to be precise on because perpetual misunderstanding and miscommunication can lead to mounting tension and conflict and ever more drastic political reactions.

Zeroparallax (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in legitimizing WP:FRINGE theories like scientific racism, and we are not interested in evaluating your personal summary of Taylor's opinions. Articles should use direct, straightforward language to summarize reliable sources. Euphemisms and public relations are neither neutral, nor "precise". Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As your link to reliable sources says, "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So perhaps if all these links and sources cannot accurately represent the views of the organization, then this article should be deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by euphemisms and public relations; I'm just interested in clear communication that is as accurate and precise as possible. Accurately presenting this group's perspective does not "legitimize" "scientific racism"; their views do not have to presented as fact. Zeroparallax (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reliable sources for this topic. Your assertion that they are not accurate is unsupported. To put this another way, Wikipedia cannot use your personal evaluation of primary sources to dispute reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for helping another website to spread its ideas, and especially not WP:FRINGE ideas. We are concerned with what reliable sources say about this topic, not what the site says about itself. Readers already know where to go for that. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given how Wikipedia works, it seems that the only valid arguments I can make are appeals to (publication) authority. Ok, that seems appropriate for an encyclopedia, for the most part. And that means that when there is a systemic bias among publication authorities, there is little that can be done to correct the error in Wikipedia. It seems that the only route would be to influence the publications to publish additional articles to point out the error or to have previous articles retracted, and/or for American Renaissance to take legal action to correct the problem, or wait for a major outlet to be interested and willing to point out the problem on its own. Of course, I might simply be wrong, and if I explore AmRen more deeply, I might conclude that it is somehow a white supremacist publication that continuously contradicts itself. However, one only has to watch a few interviews by mainstream news outlets with Jared Taylor to see how incapable the interviewers are in understanding what Jared says. It's as if he's saying "I believe that 2+2=4" and the interviewer says "so what you're saying is that 2+2=5" (similar to the Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson) and then they go on to write "we interviewed the two-plus-two-equals-five proponent Jared Taylor...". I don't need to see some news authority point out this error to know that it is an error. Again, I might, on the whole, be wrong in my perception of AmRen, but these errors are so numerous and common that the bias is obvious and I don't trust these outlets to get a clear overall picture of AmRen. (For some important reasoning about clear communication on these issues, please see Scott Alexander's blog post, "You Are Still Crying Wolf".) Zeroparallax (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to waste my time with blog posts. Experts, such as academics who study these movements, do not accept this boutique definition put-forth by Taylor, nor do they accept his claims at face value, and there are many reasons for this. White supremacy is not decided by someone simplistically making a declaration in the public square that "I think white people are superior". You are free to disagree, but don't assume this means that all of these sources must therefor be factually incorrect just because they have studied the topic from a different perspective than you have. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to cite the nuanced academics than the journalists who do not seem to be aware of the nuance. If the sources discuss the nuance, then I can be more certain that the source is coming to a reasonable conclusion. Instead, for example, the reference to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) website makes an obvious error within the first several words, calling "The New Centrury [sic] Foundation" "a self-styled white supremacist think tank". (The blog post I referenced at least has nuance, reason, and careful consideration of the topic.) Who are the nuanced academics that you are referring to? And which articles demonstrating their nuance could we reference instead? Zeroparallax (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read past the first sentence of white supremacy. Read the second and third paragraphs of the article.
I could pick a handful of sources from the pile to explain white supremacy, but you could (if you chose) dispute them based on these blogs and original research, and I could spend more time defending them or citing new ones. That turns a potentially productive discussion into a lazy debate, or a game of whack-a-mole. That's not productive. Attempting to find sources which support your prior assumptions, or my prior assumptions for that matter, isn't enough. We have many reliable sources which describe the site as white supremacist. We can make our personal decisions however we want, but Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, accepts these sources.
If you are looking for "nuance" from American Renaissance, but are not willing to look for nuance in other sources, or fail to see it for some reason, you are not arguing from a good position. Are you looking at the American Renaissance as critically as you are looking at the ADL? I assure you, it also includes many errors, both subtle and gross. If you have already decided what is right and what is wrong, why do you need me to explain any of this to you?
This specific issue has also been discussed at tedious length on Talk:Jared Taylor and its archives, as well. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained, I see that many of these sources continually demonstrate their unreliability on this topic. And when I point out a gross error in one of the supposedly-supporting sources, instead of saying "Oh, well we should remove that incorrect source," you instead say, "Well, American Renaissance makes gross errors too, so I don't want to play whack-a-mole and remove gross errors from Wikipedia; that's not productive." That makes me think that you may not be "arguing from a good position". I will instead assume you are arguing with good intentions and that you will seriously consider removing that source (or adding a comment about the error).
I am indeed interested in having nuance in other sources, which is precisely why I asked you show me sources from expert academics who can presumably elevate the discourse. I would prefer that this article refers to the best possible sources so people can get a full and deep picture of the matter and make up their own minds without immediate name-calling and attempts to poison the well; we can let the subject poison the well itself if that's what it is doing. I doubt that any source will fully meet my desire for reason and nuance (AmRen included), but I'm pretty sure the sources could be improved. (By the way, the blog I referred to doesn't mention AmRen or Jared Taylor; it discusses the importance of communicating clearly and accurately about white supremacy and related topics for the sake of non-whites, victims of white supremacy, and everyone interested in truth.)
I'm talking with you about this before making any edits because I can see that you would simply revert my edits if I made any. Zeroparallax (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, academics might sometimes be the worst people to turn to for clarity since they may sometimes be publishing simply to keep their job rather than adding valuable thought (due to the "publish or perish" predicament), and/or they may have a socio-political bias (which seems to be demonstrable in several academic fields). "White supremacy" could apply to a situation where a majority-white country takes in non-white immigrants who are of a different culture and thus have "structural disadvantages" due to the difference in culture, giving the whites a "structural privilege". These whites would then be evil "white supremacists", even when they are actively helping non-white people. Zeroparallax (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should think carefully about where that line of thinking will lead you. American Renaissance and its allies have long pushed the old canard that people are disputing their claims only because of some conspiracy, or because they are too "afraid" to speak the truth. This is no more persuasive among racialists than it is among any other WP:FRINGE ideology. If you sincerely don't trust the majority of academics who write on a topic, because you think you have predetermined their biases, you have no business contributing to Wikipedia articles on that topic.
These sources demonstrate their unreliability to you, as an editor, because you have decided that other, unreliable sources are more accurate. You are free to hold that position, but it's not going to get you very far on Wikipedia, as you've already conceded. I have specifically resisted the temptation to provide sources to you, because I do not think this will help. The burden is on you to provide sources, or to explain why sources are incorrect. There are thousands of sources which disputes the underlying premise of scientific racism in excruciating detail. Why should I bother listing any examples? If you assume that all of them must have nefarious motives, you have already set the bar too high for anyone to reach.
If I understand you correctly, your specific argument is that American Renaissance disputes the label "white supremacist" based on one specific definition of "supremacy". Here is my understanding of that specific argument, based on past discussions: Taylor claims that Asians (specifically East Asian as a race) are superior, on average, in some specific respects. Because of this, he claims cannot be a supremacist, because he doesn't believe that white people are supreme in a general sense. Is that right? As far as I know, there are no independent sources supporting this perspective, and only a few discussing it as it relates to Taylor/American Renaissance. I hope I don't have to dig too deep to explain the many logical holes in this argument. This is an extension of the model minority myth, and sources don't take it seriously. One reason for this is because using the model minority idea as a deflection is not a new argument, and has already been challenged for over a century. Revisiting the same stale nonsense decade after decade isn't a productive use of anyone's time. If you disagree with my statement, the burden is on you to propose a reliable source.
American Renaissance has published a lot of material related to this peculiar argument, but so far, none of this has influenced independent, reliable sources, at least not that I have seen. Speculating, part of the reason for this lack of influence is because American Renaissance is not an academic source, despite its veneer. If you look at what American Renaissance is advocating and still don't understand why sources describe it as white supremacist, reading more American Renaissance probably isn't going to help you. If you are operating under the assumption that this is a reputable outlet, I have no idea what source I could recommend that you wouldn't dismiss out of hand. I sincerely don't know how to explain this to you.
Your opinion that this source is discredited because of a vague error is underwhelming. You are free to take it up with WP:RSN if you want, but picking on this one source doesn't discredit the others, nor does it resolve the underlying issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "predetermined" anyone's bias. I've paid attention to the evidence and noticed some bias. Everyone has some bias in some instances. Even when biased, people can produce helpful research. That's why I'm saying that some of these nuanced academics could be better sources than journalists who make clumsy claims. I would prefer to read a source that I can learn something from. One also has to notice that some academics (or Wikipedia articles) define concepts so loosely that they become diluted and nearly meaningless, like the looser notions of "white supremacy", as I illustrated above.
The social and political pressures in academia can be just as strong (or stronger in some cases) than in other areas of society. People are indeed afraid to discuss topics that are explosive and likely to bring oneself negative attention, misrepresentation, name-calling, and physical attacks, as well as job insecurity. That doesn't mean that there is some organized, nefarious conspiracy to make these people afraid. It's just an emergent social reality.
The topic at hand is whether "white supremacist" is an appropriate term to lead the article with. We don't need to debate "scientific racism". If you know of sources that explain why AmRen and Jared Taylor count as "white supremacist" and can also explain the conceptual difference between white supremacy, white nationalism, white advocacy, etc, then those sources have demonstrated an understanding of the topic. Without that, and especially with the presence of loose and unsubstantiated claims, you can basically assume that the source doesn't understand the topic -- because people's thinking on this specific topic is so often illogical and seized by emotion. And the source should note the common dictionaries' definitions -- not some ethereal definition that essentially every white person falls under and huge numbers of non-white people fall under.
The basic argument is that the common understanding of the term "white supremacist" (the dictionary definition), does not apply. Check out many dictionary definitions using OneLook.com. As far as I know, Jared Taylor and AmRen do not claim that any race is superior to another; they are simply different, as overlapping distributions with different averages. And individuals cannot be judged by their racial group membership. And people should be free to associate or not associate as they please, without excessive government interference, but that large-scale migrations of people can be regulated by governments. The "model minority myth" is not relevant here. It's a simple argument. (Note: I don't have the same beliefs as Jared Taylor or AmRen; I'm just making an argument about how to accurately describe their positions.)
I don't take source credibility as a binary "reliable" or "unreliable". You have to pay attention to each article in its own context. Sources have strong areas and weak areas when it comes to reliability. A good instance of a source will demonstrate good critical thinking, understanding, nuance, and make arguments with evidence. (In my case, where I'm not allowed to use the subject as a source, and I'm only allowed to use major publication sources, and there seems to be widespread bias, it's pretty difficult to provide the required "evidence".)
Anyway, I'm no expert on AmRen and Jared Taylor; I'm just someone who values clear, precise, accurate communication and I hate to see rampant unsubstantiated misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I'll try to devote more time to looking into the criticisms of AmRen and Jared Taylor. I've spent too much time in this argument and I'll try not to spend more time on it. I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic and, even if I disagree with you on some things, I appreciate your efforts to keep the Wikipedia standards high. I'm just trying to set the bar a little higher. If I have a more convincing argument for you later, perhaps I'll come back to present my findings. Zeroparallax (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your commitment to clarity, virtually everyone could make this claim, no? This is a bit of a trap, because your stated desire for clarity and precision do not mean that the people you disagree with are therefore unclear. It also doesn't mean they are incorrect. In other words, what is clear to you may not be clear to other people. Conversely, if the term "white supremacist" is clear to us, it may not have the same meaning to you, but that doesn't mean either of us are incorrect. If we replace the term with something more "nuanced" this may decrease clarity for some readers. This is why I want to emphasize that most alternative terms favored by American Renaissance are euphemisms intended to make their ideas more appealing, and American Renaissance seems to agree with this point.

Here is a quote from American Renaissance. I personally think it's very clear, but probably not in the way that its author intended:

Over the years, various names have been proposed: white nationalist, white separatist, race realist, racial preservationist, “racialist” (instead of “racist”), racially conscious white person, and modifiers such as “pro-white” and “racially conscious.”
These are not awful terms, but they have shortcomings. “White nationalist” and “white separatist” are bold, but rattle too menacingly to gain widespread acceptance. The words “nationalism” or “separatism” have a coercive or even violent ring. Basque, Kurdish, Tamil, and other nationalists have been known to throw bombs. “Separatism” could almost be construed as ethnic cleansing through house-to-house raids, even if an actual white separatist has something gradual, peaceful, and voluntary in mind.[1]

Notice that he is specifically discussing how a term is perceived, with the understanding that the underlying ideology is functionally the same. This is about perception, not accuracy. The article repeats this position several times. Notice also that the author mentions how the idea of "separatist" connotes ethnic cleansing, which would be perceived as a bad thing. This point was apparently ignored when white supremacist Richard Spencer called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" a few years later at an American Renaissance conference. The comment was rightly derided by observers as incoherent, among other things. It was not, from what I have seen, derided by American Renaissance. The article goes on to say that the purpose of having a label they can agree with is to legitimize their position. He says they "have nothing to hide" while ironically wrestling with various euphemistic terms for the same underlying ideology.

I should say also that there are a large number of factual errors in that source. For one thing, presents a lot of dubious opinions as bald fact, and presents a very warped idea of how race and racism is perceived by people outside of their bubble. For another, it repeatedly and aggressively presents false dichotomies between extreme positions without acknowledging a middle ground or a third option. Third, and most relevant for this discussion, it misrepresents the history of the term "white supremacist". This was the accepted term for these views for decades (as demonstrated by the success of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy), and only became unfashionable when the underlying ideas became unfashionable. The term "white nationalist" was coined specifically as a more flattering replacement, and was only expanded into a superficially separate ideology later. Obviously that, too became toxic, so they began looking for newer alternatives. The article sort-of explains this, although not well, nor reliably. I am including it here only to explain how these terms are chosen not for "precision", but instead as form of public relations.

Obviously, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, so we have to be very, very cautious of this kind of thing. "White supremacist" may seem bold or aggressive, but the intention here is to neutrally and accurately describe the work.

As for Taylor's claims, they are not taken seriously by any reliable sources, for multiple reasons. He is careful with his words, but the implications of his position are entirely compatible with white supremacist ideology and policy. Please review outside sources, and also some of the discussions at the talk page for Taylor's article. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the term white supremacy in an objective fashion and it's inclusion in this article it is most important to look the definition of white supremacy by several well respected dictionaries.

"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races"

Merriam Webster Dictionary

"Someone who believes that people with pale skin are better than people with darker skin"

Cambridge Dictionary

​the belief that white people are better than other races and should be in power

Oxford Dictionary

Thus by those definitions American Renaissance can hardly be called a white supremacist publication.

Also you have to realise that when using such terms it's less important to consider their subjective definition and their interpretation by various interest groups such as "The Next York Times" or indeed "American Renaissance". As such I do not believe that it should be included based on the fact that there is very little evidence to point towards them supporting implicitly or explicitly white supremacy in any real fashion. Alekaa20025 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We report what the independent, reliable sources say. Original research won't change that. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common misunderstanding by new editors. We don't rely on our own interpretations, we simply report what sources that meet WP:RS say about the subject. And so far as statements by organisations and people, well, they will always put themselves forward in the best light possible. You may know the old adage, "Would you trust a used car salesman"? Doug Weller talk 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to add highly-cited academic sources (242 and 74 citations on Scholar) but apparently white nationalism and white supremacism are not "mutually exclusive" (a source for that?). You're quoting journalists (one of your sources is only the holder of a... Bachelor of Journalism; it's clearly not a RS regarding political studies), I'm quoting PhD-holding scholars. And yet I should be the one that needs to justify the edit in the discussion page.... Alcaios (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, as per WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, my sources should supersede yours, so there is not really a debate needed. I'm just waiting for your answer to restore the edit. Alcaios (talk)
Announcing your intentions to edit war is a bad idea. Until you have consensus, you should discuss, because that's how this works.
The number of citations is not the definitive test of reliability. The reliability of sources is determined by WP:RS, which means a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I do not accept that this quote from Carol M. Swain, which presents the magazine as a "leading" so-and-so, belongs in the lead. It is not an uncontroversial summary of the topic, regardless of Swain's credentials.
This source mentions American Renaissance once, in passing, as context for who Jared Taylor is. Taylor is also mentioned only once. That's it. This source is not compelling for the lead, and nothing in this appears to contradict the term "white supremacy". If you want sources for how "white nationalism" is a euphemism for "white supremacy", see White nationalism#History and usage. Reliable sources use both terms interchangeably for what is essentially the same basic idea, and they do this for a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into an edit war, I don't care about American Renaissance. There are many papers written by scholars that classify them as "white nationalist", but you probably prefer quoting Elle Reeve. It just makes me sick, sometimes, that you could become an expert in your field after a peer-reviewed PhD thesis, and still be superseded on Wikipedia by the first intern working for the NYT. To be clear : those newspapers are reliable on facts, not on the interpretation of facts, which should be let to the real experts. This is explicitly stated in WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The rules are with me, but I don't have time to lose on American Renaissance. Cheers to the next contributors that'll read that message and will be willing to address the issue. And please, Doug Weller, WP:Don't template the regulars, I'm well aware of discretionary sanctions, I wrote most of the article on the Far-right (based uon scholarly books printed by Routledge or Harvard University Press, not upon Vice/Fox/etc. News). Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcaios: I've posted to your talk page but I want it clear to anyone who reads this that I did not "template the regulars". See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. No one is or should be immune to being given an alert, and no good editor should be bothered by one. I have them all on the top of my talk page. It's not a badge of shame. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard my contributions as a badge of immunity. I just referenced my contributions to the far-right article (among others) to highlight the fact that I'm not another newly-created account that wants to whitewash an article on the subject. Grayfell's edsum and the template you posted on my tp gave me this impression; hence the tone of my replies. I'm not even saying that the qualification 'white supremacist' is incorrect, just incomplete. The only debate I'm raising (and I raise it in every article I'm contributing to) is that we should use reliable newspapers for facts (what happened and how it happened), and let reliable scholars interpret those facts (what it is and why it happened). Alcaios (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have a script that shows your edit count, privileges, etc at the top of your talk page. B: I've given them to Admins. The alert was not a comment on your opinions above. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP's edits[edit]

User:68.42.245.120 is invited to start a conversation here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wintroub 2020 ref[edit]

  • Wintroub, Michael (August 27, 2020). "Sordid genealogies: a conjectural history of Cambridge Analytica's eugenic roots". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (41). Nature Portfolio: 12. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0505-5.

I've moved it here. I don't know why it was being used to support the inclusion New Century's own self description in the lede [2]. I'm not sure what else it could be used for here, but perhaps it could be useful in related articles. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hipal: You removed several citations and some text. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just some promotional refs that don't demonstrate any encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Renaissance_(magazine)&oldid=1216915487"