Talk:Ron Unz

message: I don't think Unz is a paleoconservative. I think he is a neoconservative given his liberal ideas on immigration.
:It's not for us to decide. What do the sources say?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleoconservative?

message: I'm mystified by the article's mention that Unz came in third place with 34.3% of the vote.  Since the others must have gotten more votes, that's at least 102.9% in total.  Does someone know the facts to correct this?
Inluxication (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third place?

message: is he married?  does he have kids?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.117.160 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This claims to be a copy of an old article in The New Republic, lots of details: onenation.org. --tickle me 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: family

message: The Lead carries the following line, cited to this article on the ADL site: "The Unz Review an online publication known for its hardcore anti-semitism."
The statement is problematic on a number of counts:
* The source doesn't support the statement: it says that Unz himself has "has embraced hardcore anti-Semitism" and that the Unz Review website "has published increasingly racist and anti-Semitic content", but it doesn't state anything corresponding to the Unz Review being "known for its hardcore anti-semitism."
* The ADL has been brought up at the Reliable Source Noticeboard multiple times, the most recent occasion being this. The consensus seems to be, as in the comment by Dr. Fleischman: "The ADL is generally not a reliable source for facts, but it is generally a highly noteworthy source for its relevant opinions on antisemitism, bigotry, and other Judaism-related subjects." Therefore, it seems to be acceptable to state that the ADL has described someone as an antisemite, or something as antisemitic, but not acceptable to use the ADL as a source to state those things as facts.
    ←   ZScarpia   14:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: Unz Review. 

message: Unz Review publishes a combination of far-left and far-right writers (generally united by their anti-Israel, anti-neocon and in some cases anti-Semitic orientation), plus Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire who are on the right but not fringe-, far- or alt-right, some genetics-oriented science bloggers such as (formerly) Razib Khan and James Thompson, and a few other random bloggers like Anatoli Karlin.  It's a sort of contrarianism/antisemitism/HBD mashup but neither Unz nor his web site are far right or fascist in any sense, e.g, Unz advocates large scale Hispanic immigration into the US and while he hosts HBD content, has argued that IQ is more malleable than generally believed.  He is a strange fellow and has become a major online antisemite, but it's not clear how to characterize the political position of Unz Review in a few words. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever an article says about a subject is dependent on third-party reliable sources, rather than any personal interpretation. Philip Cross (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "far right" sentence cites three sources.  One (ADL) characterizes Unz Review as a "website" and concentrates on Unz himself; a second (Spectator) calls UR a "journal of opinion" that eventually degenerated into a venue for Unz' "runaway contrarianism"; the third is Amy Harmon in the New York Times who calls it the "far right Unz Review" without any details of what or why.  The first two sources go into detail about Unz and Unz Review, discuss many details of what one can find at the Review, and what they write is in agreement with my description of the site.  The Amy Harmon article only mentions "a blogger at the far-right Unz Review" as part of one sentence within a much longer article.  It is not clear if she familiarized herself enough with the contents of Unz Review to make reliable assertions about its nature. Do you know of other RS, such as ones she might have Googled to arrive at her claim of "far right"? The ADL and Spectator summaries aren't entirely accurate, but the authors clearly read through enough material at the Unz Review site to make an informed judgement. Not so for the NYT article. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text:  Amy may have looked at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ (no idea if RS) that claims "extreme right wing bias" at Unz Review.  On the other hand Unz Review itself says "Ron Unz is the publisher of the Unz Review, a controversial but widely read alternative media site hosting opinion outside of the mainstream, including from both the far right and the far left".  The latter description seems completely correct which would tend to contradict the correctness of the former.  By "extreme right bias" they mean that some far-rightists shunned by the mainstream are welcome to publish at Unz Review.  But the same is true for some far-leftists. The common ingredient, as the ADL and Spectator articles make clear, is not the left or right orientation but the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, anti-neocon-ism (from people who view neocon as a Jewish semiconspiracy), along with HBD and some random other topics, mostly contrarian in nature.  73.149.246.232 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Multiple online secondary reliable sources refer in passing to The Unz Review as "far-right" which we are supposed to draw on rather than our  personal interpretation. The connection with such figures as Norman Finkelstein were years ago and the characterization of Alison Weir as "left wing" is odd as her article lists her as President of the Council for the National Interest, an organisation connected with Republicans. The Federalist article from 2016 pre-dates The Unz Reviews turn to publishing or defending Holocaust deniers like Kevin Barrett and David Irving, not exactly a left-wing cause. Philip Cross (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unz regularly publishes a very wide range of contributions, but only those which grievously offend the so-called "Establishment" are mentioned on this page, and in the article itself.  Certain examples are trotted out to defame him, essentially in whatever way would seem to be most effective.  Spend some time on his site and you'll see there's a lot besides the few examples quoted here.  I note that only sources (extremely) critical of Unz are given a voice in this article.  So it's not remotely neutral. ConradArchguy (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Philip Cross stated immediately above, Wikipedia is based on what reliable independent sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unz Review is not exactly "far right" 

message: In addition to David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, Unz was praised (and simultaneously criticized as a "troublemaker hellbent on causing chaos") in postings of Andrew Anglin who runs Stormfront, a neo-Nazi site.  However I do not think this was reported anywhere mainstream.  Assuming the post could be found and linked is it worth adding to the article or the lede? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These praisings are either all notable or none notable.  I incline toward the latter (i.e., to remove the Duke and MacDonald information) since it's not surprising that anyone who publishes anti-Semitic material on a widely read website will be cheered in some fashion by professional anti-Semites.  Unz and his Review did not gain significant additional notoriety by Duke, Anglin or MacDonald praising them, they are notorious for publishing notorious material. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's reliably sourced, I think no one (besides Unz defenders) would have a problem with you including it. The Ilhan Omar argument is irrelevant, go fight that battle over at the Ilhan Omar talk page. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Unz Review publishes every (Stormfront?) post by Andrew Anglin. Behold, all 935 of them at Unz Review.--FeralOink (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unz was also praised by Andrew Anglin, editor of Stormfront 

message: If there's a direct quote, of course there should be attribution. If we're adding a statement of fact, there's no reason to additionally state the source of that fact in text - that's what the REF tags are for, and why we have cited sources inside references. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You cut the quote about Barrett, which is necessary to explain why he is mentioned here. As you say, direct quotes need to be attributed. Philip Cross (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the quote was originally removed by User:Raquel Baranow (talk), as unnecessary "word salad", and I agree with that view. I get that you were heavily involved in writing that paragraph originally, and you're probably miffed that your work was modified, but I think you should consider that maybe the better version is the one that's in place now. As for Barrett, I added, as a source, his own writing where he declares "I am a Holocaust denier", so I think that's probably plenty to let interested readers know why Barrett is mentioned here.  Dennis Osmosis (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution in the text 

message: I find this article unfairly weighted to the exclusively pro-Israel viewpoint of an iconoclastic man. The degree to which NPOV has been violated is unmistakable, given the omission of any mention of Unz's unique and outstanding periodicals and books library and the years-long effort he has put into building it. https://www.unz.com/print/ Nor is their any discussion of the reams of content on his site that are outside this page's authors' biased view of anti-semitism and anti-Israelism. For example, despite this page's surety that criticism of the Israel government is evil, there is no consensus on that issue. See Criticism of the Israeli government. This page needs a thorough makeover by unbiased authors. Marbux (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: have you some some sources meeting WP:RS that discuss his library and his site to your satisfaction? If not, then they don't belong. As for anti-semitism, all decent people are biased against it. I don't see the word evil in the article. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of Unz' other activities are separate from the web site, but the periodical archive is not, and the choice of which material to archive is directly related to Unz' personal interests. If he were to run the archive at a separate Internet site that did not drive traffic to unz.com, and the material were selected more independently of what  Unz promotes at unz.com, things might be different. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The periodical archive, which hosts everything from Marxism Today and New Masses to National Review to Munsey's Magazine to Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, is discussed at:  --Animalparty! (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Unz's Periodical Library? 

message: I am challenging the decision of User:Generalrelative to revert my recent edit to the introduction. The introduction to this article used to present purely biographical information about Ron Unz, in a clearly neutral tone. The change in tone is very recent. I wonder what justifies this change? If I search "Ron Unz" on Google or Bing, one of the first results is the article from The Spectator. And indeed, that article is cited in the current introduction. So perhaps that article is what justifies the change. But the first reference to that article I could find is older than the current introduction. More explanation is needed.
If we compare this article to other biographies, we will notice some major differences. For example, despite the man's controversial status, the Donald Trump article leads with a pithy, neutral biographical statement. What immediately follows is a chronological account of his life. The introduction is not entirely uncritical, but the criticism is not the first thing you read. Even a less popular figure like John Derbyshire has a rather tame introduction—but again, not devoid of criticism! But most striking of all is the page for Taki Theodoracopulos, another political figure with a controversial website. Theodoracopulos very similar to Unz, but his page is very different.
At this point, one may wish to compare this article with that of Steve Sailer, a contributor to The Unz Review. But there is a key difference in the two articles: The article for Sailer says that the man himself has been described as a white supremacist, while the article for Unz merely says that his website has been characterized that way. This leads me to another point: In the first paragraph of this article, 2/3 of sentences are about The Unz Review and 1/3 refer to Jared Taylor. In what kind of biography does the main subject take a back seat to a website and a different man?
Wikipedia has guidelines for biographies, e.g. WP:BLPSTYLE, which states "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone." For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find the tone of the current introduction responsible, cautious, or dispassionate. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. In my edit, I attempted to bring this article more in line these guidelines. The edit summary for the reversion says "Restored status quo." But there is no guideline favoring the status quo. For these reasons, I favor the restoration of my edit.
--DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a solid argument to me so I won't stand in the way if DIlARWzJXpwE would like to reinstate their recent edits. We can then take up any specific issues regarding weighing WP:BLPSTYLE versus WP:PROFRINGE where necessary. That said, I have not been involved at all in the development of this article (it's just on my list of articles that seem to be targets of disruptive editing), so I would welcome input from more knowledgeable editors. DIlARWzJXpwE's edit was clearly more well thought out than I'd assumed, so I appreciate them taking the time to explain their rationale, but that doesn't mean that I am now a supporter of their suggested changes –– just neutral for the time being, until persuaded otherwise either by other users or by my own research if I find time to do it. If anyone who is well versed in the history of this article or the WP:RS on its subject would care to weigh in here I suspect that would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the timely reply. The edit has been reinstated. DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical information takes precedence 

message: Unz is notable for one reason, and one reason only - he publishes a far-right anti-semitic, Holocaust denying, white supremacist website. That's it. He's not notable for being a businessman, not even close. His run for governor put him in a distant 2nd-place in the primary and that was the end of it, so that wouldn't be enough for an article about him either. The lead should start with the reason he's notable. Pushing it farther down reeks of NPOV, and it will not stand. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but you weren't reverted. Check the article history. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I didn't mean that I specifically was reverted, but there were edits that moved the Unz Review material to the latter part of the lead. I moved that to the top just now, because the Unz Review is the source of his notability. Before he published that, he was not notable. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of you actually bother to take some time to read the articles on Unz.com, as well as the comments below the articles, you will realize that Unz.com is a gathering place for hate-consumed angry white reactionary supremacists. They HATE all of the following: Jews, Blacks, LGBT sexual minorities, socialists, communists, liberals, democrats, Greens–basically if you are not one of them, you are HATED.  NRA gun nuts, and those you love to solve problems with a gun also frequent Unz.com. Neo-Nazis love Unz.com: many of Ron Unz's articles are Nazi-revisionist 'history', you know, the holocaust never happened; Hitler was right invade Russia and kill 26 million people because Communism is a Jewish conspiracy to enslave gentiles, etc. Just the other day I took a gander at Unz.com and (surprise!)–there was an article claiming that "the 2020 election was in fact stolen from Trump", and it was a conspiracy to Rob trump of the election that he in fact won by a landslide. One gets the impression when reading the posts under the reactionary racist articles posted there, that many of the people are uneducated white trash rednecks. Not all mind you, but definitely many angry poor white people are there, looking for someone to blame for their miserable existence in America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.78.44 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

text: "": I'm no champion of Unz, but an unbiased reading of the published literature contradicts this. He's notable for several things: being a political activist, several Senate races, publishing The American Conservative, opposing bilingual education, supporting a minimum wage increase, challenging Harvard University policies, etc. If he was only known for the Unz Review, every article on him would mention this. This is not the case. KQED introduced him in 2016 as: "Ron Unz, a tech entrepreneur best known for writing the ballot measure that banned bilingual education in California," with no mention of Unz Review. A 2018 Jewish Telegraphic Agency article described him as simply publisher of the American Conservative, with no mention of Unz Review.  A 2018 article in Tablet introduces him as "Jewish Harvard alum and former publisher of the American Conservative," and discusses "The Myth of American Meritocracy", with no mention of Unz Review. Indeed, more than half of this Wikipedia article is devoted to non-Unz Review matters. Selective use and (over-)emphasis of articles by the ADL and/or only the most recent articles can distort the record. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of your recent edits strengthen the article, Animalparty, and you're right he is known for other things. Unz Review redirects here so needs to be bold in the lead, and important we don't erase its most noteworthy moments from the article unless it has its own article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to discuss notable aspects of the Unz Review, so long as this is first and foremost a biography of Unz, and WP:BLPBALANCE is followed. I removed some rather poorly sourced and/or WP:SYNTH statements that seemed to imply more than the sources demonstrate.  Inferring undue guilt by association is very possible and so care needs to be taken to differentiate the views of Unz from the authors on the Review (whose columnists include libertarian Ron Paul, liberal cartoonist Ted Rall, and Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin), and avoid becoming a WP:COATRACK. There is sort of an inherent external bias in that only the most controversial posts or contributors to the Review are likely to get secondary coverage. Also, for what it's worth, a good deal of the content seems to be republished from elsewhere, making it somewhat a news aggregator of opinion pieces curated by someone with perhaps an unabashed contrarian streak and and radical devotion to Voltaire's apocryphal quote. Unz himself claims, "To be honest, I don't even read most of the articles I publish, and I certainly don't edit them." Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reversions

message: I don't understand why we can't cite the website itself for undeniable facts. The fact that the Unz Review reposts articles from the Daily Stormer is an undeniable fact, they openly state that's what they do. This page says at the bottom "(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)" along with a link to the Daily Stormer article it was copied from. I agree WP:RS are necessary to establish contentious facts, but when a website openly admits to republishing Daily Stormer articles, how is that contentious? If we wanted to add some commentary – e.g. that posting articles from the Daily Stormer is a bad thing to do – fine, we'd need a source for that. But I don't see the problem with using primary sources to establish bare facts without any associated commentary. WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I think this falls into that case. It isn't making any commentary on whether republishing articles from the Daily Stormer is a good or bad thing to do, it is simply noting without commentary the fact that they are doing it, and leaving it up to the readers to decide what significance that fact has. Mr248 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable third-party source has mentioned this issue, thus considering it notable, it could be cited. The nature of The Unz Review is already clear, so mentioning the republishing of content from a similar website is unnecessary. How many times has the website done this? The source only establishes it has republished an obituary of Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, I think the evidence is currently insufficient. Philip Cross (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   It hasn't just republished one article. It has done it five times. If you check this page, all five linked articles contain at the bottom the acknowledgement "(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)", including a link to the corresponding Daily Stormer article. You haven't explained why the clause on WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." doesn't apply here, because it clearly appears to. Mr248 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Five times, four so far this year. One hopes a reliable source takes it up, but Anglin is not the only writer of his ilk who gets the Unz seal of approval, Holocaust denier Kevin Barrett being being another contributor. I don't understand why adding Andrew Anglin is all important. The index page does not the indicate his connection with The Daily Stormer which is infinitely better known/notorious than Anglin himself. Philip Cross (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daily Stormer 

message: Mainstream coverage and scholarly perspectives of "The Myth of American Meritocracy" and similar writing by Unz seems to be more diverse and nuanced than the ADL and Marjorie Ingall sources would indicate. Earlier versions of this article implied it was little more than antisemitic tropes and Jew bashing. However, several sources seem to simply examine the data and conclusions, whether they criticize or accept them, without drawing sensational conclusions. Granted, affirmative action and higher education matters are not my specialty, and I have no opinion on whether Unz's arguments are credible (I haven't even read the piece), but this seems like one of the most prominent single articles by Unz, and probably could use some fleshing out and better encyclopedic coverage to ensure WP:NPOV. 
*
*
*
*
*
Again, I'm not arguing Unz is right or wrong, racist, antisemitic, or not, nor that it wasn't latched onto by racists and conspiracy theorists (who tend to bend any information to their worldview), but simply that this piece appears to have generated a variety of responses, and, as for every aspect of this controversial person, great care should be taken to ensure that no prominent views are lessened or omitted, and that no fringe views are given undue emphasis. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Myth of American Meritocracy 

message: I have compiled quotes from several sources in an attempt to better characterize The Unz Review, with annotations regarding the sources' reliability.  Most sources seem to mention the Unz Review briefly and/or in passing (usually in reference to a single controversial author or posting) rather than devote substantial analysis to the website itself. This makes it somewhat difficult to clearly and neutrally characterize the website, especially when reliable sources conflict. Some call it right-wing, some alt-right, some a bit of far left and far right, and several call it a platform for antisemitism and white supremacy. I am not advocating that all these descriptors be shoe-horned in the article, but am placing them here for future reference and consensus building. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of the Unz Review 

message: There's a new article in The Guardian with significant coverage of Unz. See "Harvard affirmative action challenge partly based on Holocaust denier’s work". Credit to  for finding it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source