The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:13, April 26, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Jared Taylor doesn't subscribe to a belief in white supremacy. He doesn't believe that whites are the superior race or that whites should dominate other races. His ideology is Ethnopluralism. He wants to preserve and advocate for the white race in their homelands but also wants all the other races to be preserved and advocate for themselves in their homelands. The article currently misrepresents Taylor's beliefs. This is something that should be corrected. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no secret that Jared Taylor is a far-right, extremist, racist, bat-shit insane conspiracy theorist, but he is also an outspoken National Socialist.
Adding "Nazi" to his Wikipedia page is only right. I'm aware that my source has a left-leaning bias, but is ultimately, objectively correct. I think the video manages to encapsulate the Nazi views of Jared Taylor.
View my source and see for yourself, how this evil NAZI constantly spreads his EVIL, NAZI rhetoric.
I take issue with this.....and I will revert it unless I am given a good reason why or consensus is against it. First you said (in a edit summary) the issue was that the quote was too lengthy. Then you said the chopped down version was still too long. (Which simply isn't true.) Then you started saying chronological order was the issue. Which is it? The bottom line is there is nothing wrong with this edit [3]. To have a section on Donald Trump in a article on Jared Taylor....and not include Jared Taylor's thoughts on Trump's racial views (from RS) is utterly preposterous. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have consensus to add this quote. Instead of edit warring, discuss here.
Taylor has given many interviews and has shared many personal opinions. This doesn't matter, and it does not make him an expert on politics or psychology, or any other relevant topic. His personal opinions about some other person are not inherently relevant. To put it another way, he is completely unqualified to analyze what Trump's "consciousness" was in 2016, so this opinion is vaguely promotional clutter. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a section on Donald Trump....we are not going to include what Taylor thinks of Trump's racial views? He doesn't need to be "qualified" to say why he thinks Trump is an ally. Or if he thinks Trump is a kindred spirit (intellectually). This is a big portion of the quoted article and clarifies what he really thinks of the current President. I see no logical reason for this (and the fact the reasons keep changing reinforces that.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see multiple valid reasons to oppose this kind of bland padding. Taylor is not a credible source of factual information about anyone's mindset, especially about what is "normal" or "healthy". Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor is a expert on his opinion. That is all that counts. I can certainly think of other ways to put it/summarize it....but I am hearing no valid reason to exclude it. This may have to go to RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what about what I am doing is SOAPBOXING here? That's the second time someone has implied there is something "promotional" going on here. Who is promoting what exactly? Be specific. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than turning to the independent analysis in the reference and summarizing it, you are picking quotes to support a certain portions of Taylor's pov. Doing so violates NOT, POV, and BLP. --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of quotes directly from Taylor. I am selecting nothing except what he believes. That is common in almost every article here. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking just other articles...we are talking this one too. But you want something without a quote from Taylor? Fine, direct from the RSs cited...I would say: "Taylor does not see Trump as a white supremacist in line with his views, but still supports Trump because he believes his racial views are closer to his than the alternatives such as Hillary Clinton."
Well I disagree. And I see no issue with paraphrasing (or direct quoting) Taylor. All references are given in this thread. I see this conversation is useless and I will start a RFC on this (probably next week).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article (linked below) just quotes Taylor, with no analysis, so I don't see why we'd give it any weight.
Seems like you're looking for refs to support your point of view, without regard to our policies. At least three sanction topics apply. Tread with care.
I'm unclear if the WaPo article (linked below) should be used. It quotes Taylor at length, barely summarizing, "Taylor is firm in his support for Trump, clear that his reasons have to do with race." --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule here that prohibits quoting or paraphrasing directly from RS. And you cherry picked the WaPo article. It says (not in a direct quote): "Taylor said that he does not believe Trump is a white supremacist.". And that is exactly what my latest proposal said.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is it a requirement to be? We have RS of him expressing his opinion of Trump. I would think the reader would want to know: does he consider Trump a intellectual leader of the alt-right? Did he influence Taylor at all (or vice versa)? Is Trump just a useful idiot to him? These kinds of questions are answered by what I posted. And I found 2 more today [5][6]. That is 3 RSs (straight from our reliable source list) all essentially saying the same thing. To leave this out in a section about Trump in a article on Jared Taylor is unbelievable. We include people's thoughts on other people all the time in other articles. (Even the articles on prominent Nazis fer crissakes.) I don't see a policy based argument here. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor has been doing soft PR for white supremacism for decades. This particular claim isn't informative, even as an example. Taylor is not a credible source for the claim Trump isn't "race conscious". I don't know whether or not Taylor actually believes this, either. Taylor's claims are demonstrably incorrect, and this was clear in 2016 (starting with Fred Trump#Federal civil rights lawsuit and going to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump, with many, many more in between). Taylor's claim only superficially make sense if we accept his bundle of WP:FRINGE claims about race and crime and so-on. For us to be accepting that premise, even as an 'opinion' with attribution, is still a fringe issue. Taylor is not qualified to speak on Trump, or on race, or on normalcy. The point of him saying this is imply that racism is 'normal'. Wikipedia isn't a platform for this kind of PR, and laundering it by presenting it as an opinion is not appropriate.
So wiki isn't the place for this.....why is the article packed with Taylor quotes like "Whites are making a terrible mistake by setting in motion forces that will reduce them to a minority."?
I disagree that his statement isn't informative. Analyzing how much Trump is in bed with the alt-right (intellectually or otherwise) is indeed very informative. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it could be informative, but Taylor isn't reliable for this analysis, and this article on Taylor isn't the best place for an analysis of Trump. To put it another way, picking examples of Taylor's musings and describing them as an analysis is editorializing. Wikipedia doesn't assume that Taylor even knows what he's talking about, assuming he isn't being disingenuous. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a guy who isn't reliable/doesn't know what he is talking about....a lot of his quotes sure are in the article. (And I am not the one who put them there btw.) In any case, I think I am done talking about this under this format. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
