Talk:Boyd Rice

Overview Edit

I deleted ", as well as the second, after John Cage, to use a turntable as an instrument." as this is objectively false. John Cage wasn't even the first to use the turntable as an instrument. --Guaguanco127 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, any passages in this article that cite sources 4 and 5 as references on sampling + turntable music are repeating music journalists breathlessly parroting Rice's own summary of electronic music history - totally ahistorical/inaccurate. Acampbellpayne (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

neo-nazi

He is definitely a neo-nazi. Here is video proof. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EA9F447254EC61A5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Appearing on a racist talk-show does not make one racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.194.99 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but making dozens of other pro-fascist, racist, anti-semitic statments over the years does. 76.105.183.62 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Boyd Rice has not made ANY 'anti-semitic' statements 'over the years'. Not one. Name a single instance. You won't be able to. Neither has Rice made 'dozens' of pro-fascist or 'racist' statements. He has only ever spoken in favour of a philosophy of 'realism' or sometimes 'social Darwinism'. Your claims are unsubstantiated bullshit. 86.164.239.138 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Just becaus he believes in fascistism, raceism, and the pruity of the human race dose not make him a neo-nazi it makes him social darwinist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.232.66 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are these racist/anti-Semitic statements? In that YouTube video he purposely does not make any racist comments. He only agrees that electronic music appears to generally be more appealing to whites. The host consistently tries to get racial comments from Rice, but he never makes any. Rice has never targeted ethnic groups. While he did appear on a racist television show, he has often consciously done things to create controversy from nothing. He has appeared in a photograph with a neo-Nazi but has always adamantly stated he is not a Nazi, and does not agree with the Nazi ideology. He and his ideologies are unpopular in white supremacist circles. He believes in a sort of fascism that is associated with Satanism; that the laws of nature do not allow equality and the strong will rule. He has stated that he does not follow any form of political fascism.

You are taking a section of what he has done as part of his beliefs about the social system and projected that as his ideology. By that same logic you could say that he is a vegetarian because he told authorities he was campaigning for animal rights following the Ford incident. The placement of your information within the article was not only redundant of what was stated above, but also disrupts the neutrality by portraying Rice as racist by intentionally placing the information after Boyd's defense statement, simply because he appeared on a racist talk show as part of his ideology of breaking convention to produce an effect. --Nihilcognition (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if he is a fascist or a neo-Nazi...so what? What's the big deal? It is a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Better to be a Nazi than a commi. Norum (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinship with LaVey

Didn't he also have some form of ideological "kinship" with 'Marilyn Manson/Brian Warner'? Nagelfar 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rice's kinship with Marilyn Manson is well documented on his website, www.boydrice.com/. Manson has admitted Rice was, along with LaVey, a role model for him while growing up. Rice and Manson spoke frequently to eachother on the phone, however, after Manson's rise to fame, they speak to eachother much less frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs)

Then this is notable enough that it should be incorporated into the article. Nagelfar (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

references

this is a really nice article. it would be improved by properly citing references within the main text,though. i've added one, but attaching some of the specific references to specific passages of text within the article would really help make it a terrific article. --Kaini 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Rice (1638)

Is he of the well attested known to be pervasive Rice line of Edmund Rice? 4.242.174.79 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of means for Mr. Boyd Rice to find out links with Edmund Rice of Sudbury and Marlborough. First he could take his genealogical information about his ascendants (father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc.) and cross reference them with the genealogical database maintained by the Edmund Rice (1638)Association [[1]]. Additionally, he could become part of the Rice Family Tree molecular genealogy project and compare his results with the reconstructed Edmund Rice haplotype presented in the Wiki page for Edmund Rice (1638). But, Mr. Rice should be aware that there are some 20 distinct Rice Family lines already identified by molecular methods [[2]], and the Y-DNA testing could possibly pinpoint exactly which of the twenty he belongs. Innapoy (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining, yes - but just a wee bit on the pretentious side

"he emphasized the consensus nature of reality and the havoc that can be wreaked by refusing to play by the collective rules that dictate most people's perception of the external world"

How 'bout we try this instead : "It's fun to fuck with people".

Controversy

Since the subject is admittedly controversial, i would strongly recommend that any unsourced statements be removed, esp. in regards to his alleged nazism. saying he is friends with someone jewish, without a source, is foolish here. we arent here to defend him, and anyone who knows the history of antisemitism knows that "some of my best friends are jewish" is not an argument that someone isnt antisemitic. We should not be interested in proving either way, we should only be interested in finding notable sources that say something meaningful about the subject. I especially dont like the massive quote from Rice, which is unsourced and may be considered a copyright violation even if sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced and possibly not even accurate quote towards the middle, and fixed some of the sources, as well as adding two extra sources not previously there. Hopefully this helps raise the quality. Twarwick666 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestic abuse

The article fails to mention that Boyd Rice beat and strangled his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:C200:4202:414D:B700:750:E4CC (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boyd Rice. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011092743/http://drunkard.com:80/md_staff.html to http://www.drunkard.com/md_staff.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041014193122/http://www.devilsweb.com:80/snakeoil/boyd.html to http://www.devilsweb.com/snakeoil/boyd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021072317/http://www.boydrice.com:80/interviews/blackpimp.html to http://www.boydrice.com/interviews/blackpimp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm not an expert on Rice, but I think the current article softpedals his semi-ironic fascism. The NPOV tag is useful as a warning to readers in case I never get around to improving the article. Prezbo (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Spencer Sunshine

I don't think this person is a neutral source. His Twitter account has a post whitewashing communism and in addition to following anti-Israel accounts, his profile picture contains anti-Semitic imagery. MistahKrinkle (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Without getting into an argument about his Twitter account, let's take it as read that Sunshine is on the far left politically and isn't sympathetic to Rice. However the book's published by an academic press, which makes it the best source currently available according to Wikipedia's usual standards. Honestly I don't know that much about the ins and outs of Wikipedia's reliability/neutrality practices, you can post at WP:RSN if you want someone else's opinion. If there are specific sentences cited to Sunshine that you think are wrong, point them out and I can see if there's another source that says the same thing. But I'm opposed to removing the content sourced to Sunshine's book wholesale, it's exactly the kind of source Wikipedia normally values. Prezbo (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prezbo I agree it's a good source, not sure about the far left. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm double checked his twitter and can find very little about communism, unless you mean this[3] but that doesn't seem to match your description. He was interview last month by JWeekly[4] which would seem odd for an antisemite, and there's this opinion piece from 2017[5] where he criticises antisemites in left wing groups. Alhough there are individuals who use anti-zionism as a way of hiding there antisemitism I think you've missed the mark in this case.

Ultimately as this is an author who has been published by a high quality academic publisher on the subject matter at hand, it appears to be the exact type of source that Wikipedia should rely upon. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I also feel it is necessary to point out that holding far-left opinions would not make sources written by an author unreliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Lmao, but only on Wokipedia. Imagine if it were the other way round: "holding far-right opinions would not make sources written by an author unreliable". We both know that wouldn't fly. 77.22.168.237 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Holding far right opinions does not make sources written by an author unreliable either. Far right authors are much more likely to lean towards WP:FRINGE beliefs, due to their tendency towards denialism of various kinds and the essentially unscientific nature of racism, but there is nothing to stop far right authors who avoid this from being cited on here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)