Talk:VDARE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Including the major critics of organizations is an important part of making comprehensive articles on those organizations. The fact that VDARE has been labelled as a hate group by an important anti-hate group organization is clearly relevant to accurately describing VDARE. Now that characterization may be wrong, and counter-arguments can be made, but it is inappropriate to simple pretend that criticism doesn't exist by deleting mention of it from the article. -Willmcw 01:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shall we then re-write the SPLC article and say that many accuse the SPLC of being [anti-white] racists? No, no one would agree to that, even though the charge has been made by several organizations/people. This is the exact same situation. VDARE is not a self-declared racist organization (it doesn't matter what some self-appointed "racism watchdog organization" says), so such a charge should not be in this article, to include it is pov. B Sveen.
Actually, if you go read the SPLC article you will see that it has a couple of paragraphs devoted to criticism of the center. It is important for every article about a person, place, or thing that we include not only what they say about themselves, but also what others say about them. If you want to balance the SPLC designation with favorable designations by others then that would improve the article. But you cannot simply delete facts. -Willmcw 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's the point, it is hardly a "fact" that VDARE is a racist organization. It is not a racist organization. Just because SPLC says it is does not make it so, and just because SPLC makes an allegation doesn't mean that we should automatically add it to the article. To say"splc says vdare is racist" is pov & false (vdare is not openly racist, they publish non-whites, they don't really adovcate hatred at all; SPLC is just interested in silencing people who don't agree with them, that's all this amounts to, so it shouldnt be added). The article already mentions that vdare has critics, and that is enough, we shouldn't force this "SPLC alleges racism" down the throat of people who happen to read the article.
Calling a non-racist organization racist is not fair and should be avoided. Therefore I strongly protest your addition of the SPLC racism charges. -B Sveen


excellent job on the new edits, Willmcw. These I can live with, & I promise you I will not revert. --B Sveen, December 6, 2004

Glad it worked out. If we can find some awards or commendations or other positive facts to add to the article then that is relevent too. The good and the bad both have a place. Thanks for your help in making it a better article. -Willmcw 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not once on VDARE's "Why VDARE?" page (http://vdare.org/why_vdare.htm) does author Peter Brimelow mention that Virgnia Dare's parents were immigrants. Does anyone else find this ironic?

Yes I suppose it is ironic. I'd also say it's original research unless we can find someone who has said so in print. In fact, Brimelow and at least one of his columnists, Michelle Malkin, are immigrants as well. That irony has been written and printed, so you should be able to find references if you'd like to add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I have noted this fact in the article (as neutrally as possible).
>>Not once on VDARE's "Why VDARE?" page (http://vdare.org/why_vdare.htm) does author Peter Brimelow mention that Virgnia Dare's parents were immigrants. Does anyone else find this ironic?<< Let's see. He says right at the beginning: "She was the first English child to be born in the New World...It says something about the mettle of those settlers that any pregnant woman would cross the Atlantic." Maybe he just foolishly assumed his readers would have sufficient grasp of English to understand what "first English child" and "cross the Atlantic" meant?

I also tidied up the grammar, and took out these two lines: "Supporters of VDARE argue that the anti-immigration issue is why it publishes articles by writers with deep links to white supremacist groups" and "who Brimelow contrasts with the specter of the last White family leaving Los Angeles, California". The lines were too confusing, and the latter is rather too close to SPLC's own description. Oh, and I changed the description of SPLC from "left-leaning" to "progressivist", in keeping with the more neutral descriptions of VDARE as "paleoconservative" etc. (rather than "right-leaning").

Contents

[edit] Neoconservative?

By no means is Peter Brimelow a neoconservative.

Brimelow is a paleoconservative.

[edit] Hate site

The SPLC website has this line:

Editor's note: Based on evidence compiled by the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center is adding VDARE to its list of hate sites on the Web. [1]

On that basis, it is justified to say that the SPLC has called them a hate group/website. -Willmcw 23:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


Well, I cant believe I missed that note. Put it back in then. I apologize.

Guy Montag 00:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for restoring the info. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I see you call the categorization "controversial." Has anyone disputed it? -Willmcw 00:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
The appelation seems to have been referred to repeatedly on VDARE, with this being the most prominent example: VDARE Endorsed by Southern Poverty Law Center! (Well, we regard it as an endorsement.) It appears that they embrace the label, or at least consider it a mark of honor. -Willmcw 00:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Also, here is the version that was in the text until recently, which calls the SPLC controversial, rather than their specific reference to VDARE:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group, has added VDARE to its list of watched groups, in part due to its publication of essays by Jared Taylor, head of the American Renaissance.
Perhaps we should go back to that formulation? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


Good idea, but I think that the catogarization is still controversial. Its an anti immigration group, not a racist group. Guy Montag 03:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they're against immigration by White English Speaking Christians, though.Gzuckier 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


What does that have to do with it being racist?

Guy Montag 16:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, we need to avoid expressing our own opinions in articles. If you find a source that calls the appelation controversial, or that even disputes the categorization, then that is different. "Hate" and "racism" are two separate ideas, although they may overlap. The SPLC is accusing them of being a hate group, not necessarily of being racist. Anyway, I'll put the old text back, which I think summed up the situation in an NPOV manner. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I am fine with the term, if you explain to me what is exactly a "hate group"?

Guy Montag 20:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the SPLC's use of the term, I'd suggest you go there for an answer. We also have an article on hate groups in Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

After looking it up, it appears that the definition of a hate group, like hate speech is very murky. If you look at the "psychology of hate groups" in the hate group article, you will see that VDARE does not fit such a profile at all.

Guy Montag 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No doubt it is murky. Yet it appears that VDARE may be engaged in at least one or more of the stages listed in "Psychopathology of hate groups". However, it is not for us to decide one way or another. The NPOV thing to do is simply to report that the SPLC has listed them. -Willmcw 20:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I consider this part of the discussion over then.

Guy Montag

[edit] VDARE & SPLC

Guy, can you give us the source for this sentence?

... that the SPLC is attempting to use guilt by association with controversial individuals to demonize the internet site.

I don't doubt it, but we should attribute a direct claim to someone. Brimelow? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein of Harper's Magazine and David Horowitz of Frontpage.com have been making these claims. Although I extrapolated a little bit. I do not think you will find a direct quote, but this is the general idea from the articles they have written.

Also, VDARE has made this same claim when the editor of American Renessiance made a contributing article on their website. I am well aware that unsavory characters such as Kevin MacDonald sometimes contribute as guest editors, but SPLC has used their opinions to lump VDARE in the same catagory as them.

Guy Montag 23:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If "VDARE" (Brimelow) doesn't say so, then we shouldn't put words in his mouth. As a "writers collective", I'm not sure of the status of "guest" writers. The "hate website" designation is directly linked to publishing Taylor. In any case, I'm going to remove the assertion until we can find a direct quote for it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vdare is NOT an "anti-immigration" site. It is an immigration reform site.

I agree. Change it.

Guy Montag 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article does not, and has not, said that "Vdare is an anti-immigration site". Anti-immigrant views are expressed by its writers, but that is a different matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is way too much text involving SPLC criticisms. A sentence or two would have sufficed. The paragraph should be shortened considerably. This article is almost more about the SLPC than it is about V-Dare.--Bigplankton 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

IPer your comment I've removed a sentence which was just a counter-attack on the SPLC, and which did not add anything to the discussion of VDARE. -Will Beback 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't have removed the counter of the criticisms. Disingenous. Now the article takes on an even more biased tone.--Bigplankton 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I kept the rebuttal to the criticism. But criticizing the critic for tax problems, etc, does not address the criticisms, and serves no purpose other than as an ad hominem. Criticism of the SPLC belongs in that article, and is given plenty of room there. -Will Beback 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay, not too bad. The other criticism had more meat on it's bones though. j/k --Bigplankton 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
FYI, at the moment there are about 121 words devoted to the SPLC criticism, and about 191 devoted to the response. -Will Beback 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just changed an error re Brimelow's citizenship status. He is a sworn citizen, and his children are by birthright. His late wife was a permenent resident.

[edit] "anti-immigrant?" PROVE IT.

Point to one "anti-immigrant" writer on vdare. They are immigration REFORMERS, not "anti-immigrant."

Use of the phrase "anti-immigrant" is NOT neutral and is scurrilous.

Also, it is your OPINION that the CCC is "white supremacist." It is not a fact. Just because the ADL and other groups that profit by anti-white racism claim it this similarly does not make it a fact.

Oh geez, it's not antiADLanon guy here, too?Gzuckier 21:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is the opinion of many that the CCC is white supremacist. Find a more commonly-used term and we can change it. Phrases like "Are Mexican Immigrants The New Barbary Pirates?"[2] address immigrants, not immigration or reform. Time and again immigants are depicted as criminals. VDARE is widely called anti-immigrant. Anyway, the article doesn't say that VDARE itself is anti-immigrant, only that some of the views expressed there are. Please sign your talk page posts. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't make much sense to argue for immigration restriction and at the same time hold that the immigrants coming in are the cream of humanity. Mirror Vax 20:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well that is effectively what some claim. "Some of my best friends are immigrants" and "it's only about the numbers". However VDARE writers sometimes focuse on the harm that immigrants (not just immigration) do to the country, hence the term "anti-immigrant". -Willmcw 20:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Some environmentalist types are opposed to immigration because they are opposed to population growth. But usually, concerns about immigration revolve around social issues like language, poverty, crime, etc. Mirror Vax 22:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with VDARE and the question of whether some opinions expressed on it are anti-immigrant. -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Illegal immigrants ARE criminals. Pointing this out is not anti-"immigrant." Hmong, for instance ARE wildly dependent on welfare and prone to criminality: this, too, is truth, it is not "anti-immigrant" to make te observation. And I am particularly scratching my head as to the "Barbary Pirates" piece is in any way "anti-immigrant": it is anti-human-smuggling/anti-Slavery. "Anti-immigrant" is not POV. It is your (quite biased in my view) opinion and you wield it to tarnish vDare.com specifically and immgration reformers in general. Thanks. -Sixpackshakur
  • Wow... "Hmong, for instance ARE wildly dependent on welfare and prone to criminality: this, too, is truth..." Dude - it doesn't get much more racist or anti-immigrant than this. --AStanhope 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Right. Because telling the truth is "racist." Tarring people with epithets like "anti-immigrant," on the other hand, is "progressive."

Illegal immigrants are not mentioned in the article "Are Mexican Immigrants The New Barbary Pirates?" Instead, the article points out that the pirates were a "terrible scourge" that was (according to a reviewer) "minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims." The short piece concludes that:

But from a VDARE.COM perspective, the more significant point is why the size of this problem registered so little amongst the political elites of the time. It was because the burden fell on the blue collar workers in unfashionable occupations and remote locations. Sounds familiar."

If you google "VDARE anti-immigrant" you'll see that the view of VDARE as being anti-immigrant is widespread. If you want to make an issue of it we can list all the people who feel that way and give quotations. Or, we can leave it as it is, which simply says that the range of views includes some that are anti-immigrant. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen - please take a closer look at VDare's site. They are not "anti-immigrant". As previously pointed out, Peter Brimelow is an immigrant. They are anti ILLEGAL immigration. Think of it this way, if you will - they are against crime, against breaking the laws of the United States of America. Are a lot of the articles having to do with Mexican immigrants? YES! But that is not because they are racist - it is because Mexico has a common border with the US, and thus make up the largest population of *illegal* immigrants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.8.50 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DA King

I have demanded to be removed from the VDARE editorial collective. please see my edit on VDARE page... I hope that WIKI will correct VDARE page and keep my edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dking1952 (talk • contribs) .

What I think we find confusing is that you demand to be removed from the masthead, but when we've removed your entry here you've reinserted it. This appears to be part of a dispute between yourself and VDARE. We can't make VDARE do anything. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please settle the matter elsewhere. -Will Beback · † · 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
An editor removed the assertion that King had asked to be removed, with this comment:
  • No unbiased supporting evidence to this claim. Only the author's own person blog substaniates this claim - this is not a reliable source,
Per WP:V, we may use a blog as a source for its author's opinion. We could rephrase it to say that he has claimed to have asked to be removed. But is there actually a dispute over this matter? Has VDARE denied King's claim? -Will Beback · † · 07:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


VDare has not denied his claim. There is a dispute of money, with VDARE claiming that since they paid for his articles, they have every right to keep them, and his name on the site. After being paid a large sum of money DA King began to slander VDARE and it's founder. Currently VDARE seems to be taking the high road by not exposing DA Kings "dirty laundry", I doubt this will continue to continue to be the case if Donald King does not cease. There is currently litigation in this matter.

Why don't we call him a "former contributor"? From what you say it appearss unlikely that he'll be making future contributions to the website. -Will Beback · † · 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


That seems to be the best compromise right now. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battle ground!


[edit] POV

This statement is POV "Some critics of VDARE point out it publishes racist or racialist material." "point out" implies that the material is racist and racialist by fact. 216.64.125.78 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it to "claim". -Will Beback · † · 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King compromise

Apparently the old compromise hasn't been sufficient. How can we agree on the treatment of King? We apparently need to add some text to indicate he has tried to remove his name. Any suggestions for some consensus wording? How about "King and VDARE are in a contractual dispute"? -Will Beback · † · 10:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't believe that there is a need to say that Kind has tried to remove his name from the masthead, unless he plans to share WHY he wants his name off, and why the editors are refusing to do so. It seems biased to only show one side of the story.

[edit] "Selected articles"

What criteria are we using to select the "Selected articles"? Are these just "Favorite articles of Wikipedians"? If so it should be deleted. The website itself maintains a full archive, so I don't see the value of picking out a few random (or non-random) articles. The only justifiable criteria I can imagine would be "noted articles", that is articles which have generated comment or controversy. -Will Beback · † · 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, these aren't just "Favorite articles of Wikipedians" [sic]. I detect a condescending tone here which seems to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. They are examples chosen to show the site's tone and stance. Why fix what isn't broken? Yakuman 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you the editor who added them? If so it merely reflects your opinion of the site's tome and stance, not an objective viewpoint. I didn't mean to be condescending or uncivil, but all articels need to be neutral and verifiable. "Selected article" lists with no selection critieria don't belong in the WP articles of any publication. -Will Beback · † · 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless these are articles that have been covered by independent sources in the media, they should not be listed. Certainly we should not maintain such a selection. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Blanking an important part of an entry is a classic instance of vandalism (WP:VAN). Please cease vandalizing this page, User:Will Beback. Since WP:V relates only to dubious sources that are not the original source itself, claiming "source" as a rationale for the vandalism is an irrelevant and specious cover story. Thus, articles at VDARE cannot possibly be dubious "sources" about VDARE.

As for your criticism, "If so it merely reflects your opinion of the site's tome [sic] and stance, not an objective viewpoint," that too is specious, since any judgment in selecting articles is going to be the judgment of a human being. Your vandalism merely reflects your opinion; however, fabricating reasons for vandalism that claim to be based in WP rules but have no such objective basis is a clear non-no. You are simply doing anything possible to sandbag WP readers and editors alike. 70.23.199.239 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "selected articles" that are selected without an objective criteria will reflect the judgment of the editor making the selection. That's why such lists are not a good idea. -Will Beback · † · 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an objective criterion, not "an ... criteria." And your "yes" was not a yes at all. 70.23.199.239 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no objective reason to include these "selected articles" as opposed to other selected articles. If you can provide some reasoning we can discuss it. But absent any logic for its inclusion, this list will be removed as a violation of the neutral point of view policy. -Will Beback · † · 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC section

The nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

I can't see any need to mention that SPLC is a nonprofit, so I'm removing this, please don't add it back without justification. Wnjr 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)