Talk:Jack Posobiec/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV dispute added

Pursuant to the discussion above, I have marked this page as in dispute for point of view neutrality, particularly in relation to the Biographies of Living Persons sections on neutrality and public figures. Other sections of the BLP policy are also applicable for this dispute, including sources being challenged or inconsistent (see above discussion). It would be helpful if editors who have not previously been involved in edits to this page were to conduct an impartial review and a request for such an action will be submitted if necessary.

In keeping with suggestions in the Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute section on reaching neutrality, it is suggested that edits which include multiple sources for conflicting information, such as the disputed association with the alt-right, be included as previously suggested. Both criticism and praise should be available if provided by reliable sources, per the balance guidelines with a mind to properly considerations of possible false balance.

Presently, there appears to be a concerted effort to maintain a particular chosen narrative about the subject of this article (and I say this with great caution), rather than presenting a dispassionate and encyclopedic biography. This can be fixed with effort, and I invite anyone, especially those who have not already involved themselves in recent edits (see above discussion) to participate.

Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: NPOV dispute added to dispute resolution board for NPOV noticeboard and the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag has been removed less than 24 hours after being added while discussion is still active on NPOV noticeboard and Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. The edit summary associated is simply "Not buying it," which doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for removal in the when to remove guidelines. Sources used currently in the article are disputed under several Wikipedia guidelines, as is the tone of the article. At present, an insufficient number of people have joined the discussion. Clarification is requested. Updated with this question on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. Thank you.

You've claimed -- with an entirely wrong rationale, mind you -- that you are dropping this matter[1]. Therefore, there is no dispute any more. So there is no need for Tag of Shame. now I will close this section, too. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrator note Ihuntrocks has disengaged from this particular content dispute at my request as I believed he was getting overly invested, to the point where some of his comments were pushing the boundaries of propriety. That said, some of the concerns raised strike me as potentially having merit and may warrant continued discussion. Further they have indicated that although they are stepping back from the discussion, again at my request, they do not consider the issue resolved. It's also worth noting that this article is being discussed on at least two other noticeboards, which I think is regrettable. IMO those discussions should be migrated to this page. Accordingly I am re-opening this for now to permit further discussion. I am also restoring the tag that was removed in good faith until the various discussions wind down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I do think it's better to describe Posobiec as "far right" rather than "alt right". This seems to be more consistent with the sources and "alt right" is euphemistic anyway. I also think that "internet troll" should probably be given in text attribution. The meaning may not be clear to all of our users, and it is mostly a pejorative rather than a descriptive term. The other stuff (adding his navy service to the lead, whitewashing Pizzagate etc.) is pretty much a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. If there's some other complaint in the wall of text above that someone else wants to pick up, I'm open to it, but I don't think we need to keep an NPOV tag up forever if the only editor who supports it is not participating in the discussion. Nblund^talk 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note The NPOV tag should not be removed until consensus has been reached regarding the various concerns raised. I have closed the BLPN and NPOVN discussions and directed editors to this discussion. The ANI discussion remains open, but is only tangentially about this matter and may be closed soon. Also I wish to repeat that Ihuntrocks withdrew from the discussion at my urging not because their concerns were determined to be unfounded but because the manner in which they were interacting with other editors was less than ideal. Their withdrawal does not constitue the matter being closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Using "admin note" is NOT an appropriate use of the note when it comes to a content dispute. By restoring the tag and taking part in the discussion about it, you've become WP:INVOLVED and as far as the presence of the tag is concerned, you are just a regular editor like the rest of us here. Obviously multiple users here object to the tag, there is no consensus for "Ihuntrocks" proposed changes and the tag is being added as some kind of consolation prize. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And fuck it, while we're here let me just say that I am so fucking sick and tired of some admins coddling, enabling and nurturing what are obvious - to anyone who actually edits content - disruptive socks. It is a real pain in the ass to keep dealing with these accounts over and over and over and over and over again, and the reason they always come back is precisely because when they appear some gullible admin comes along and does the whole "gee, you guys need to assume good faith and blah blah blah". Easy for you to say, it's not your time being wasted. "Ijusthuntrocks" account was started on March 19. It became active on October 30. Of 2019. Within a day it was quoting policy like a freakin' veteran, formatting references better than folks who've been here for years, easily finding their way to various discussion boards without being informed of them, and referencing obscure Wikipedia arcana. It's a fucking sock. Why do we all have to pretend that we don't know this? And it's a disruptive sock which is bringing up issues which have been discussed before and wasting everyone's time. So why are we suppose to indulge it? And why is an admin invoking his "administrative note" powers to protect this account? Please do us all a favor and stop making editing Wikipedia so much less pleasant for the people who are here to contribute long term. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, sorry, but I don't see how Ad Orientem is "involved" here (they haven't commented on the content, only to say that it's not prima facie ridiculous). You know I don't have a lot of patience for trolls, but I don't see any coddling yet (though I haven't read all the way down the page). The best way to handle the kind of troll that cannot be blocked outright is to use arguments and numbers. Yes, sometimes that takes a day or two. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoring an NPOV tag and defending it is commenting and acting on content. It's basically saying "this content is ok" or "this content is problematic". Of course AO has perfect right to do that. But not as an admin. Whether the POV tag should be in the article or not is decided the usual way, by discussion and consensus among editors, not by admin fiat. That's why it's WP:INVOLVED. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing but bad faith, personal attacks and other things completely antithetical to creating a "pleasant" editing environment.--MONGO (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

None of the concerns are founded and the article is thoroughly sourced. That someone disagrees with the sources’ characterization of Posobiec as a troll and conspiracy theorist is irrelevant. This ought to be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

After taking some time to disengage from the discussion to ensure that I can comport myself in accordance with community standards, I am rejoining the discussion. I would first like to state that I agree with Nblund's reasoning above regarding the change from "alt-right" to "far-right" in this article. I also agree that the term "internet troll" should have an inline description for clarity. I wish to thank Nblund for the thoughtful analysis of those subjects. With that said, I would like to address some source issues with the article. It is a bit long, and I apologize. I have included links to policies as well as sources and references when necessary.

Biographies of living persons have more stringent standards in many respects for sources, and I have concerns about many of the sources used in the article. I would like to state those concerns and clarify that stance. The biggest issue that I have, which cuts across a number of sources used, is that the sources often neither define the terms used (or provide a link to a definition) when using a term -- such as "alt-right" as only one example -- and many make assertions without providing evidence or context for those assertions. It not only seems inappropriate to ask an encyclopedia to present assertions without evidence as if they were facts, but it would also seem to violate a number of policy guidelines for the biographies of living persons. In particular, the guideline that material which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be removed immediately and without discussion if it is poorly sourced. The reliable sources guidelines for news organizations stipulate that items which are opinion, op-ed, or analysis are not considered reliable sources for anything other than the author's statements and are rarely so for facts.

Sources used such as [4] and [9] in the assertion of "alt-right" are clearly marked as analysis on the source page and should never have been included under the guidelines. The source labeled as [2] contains factual errors, such as Richard Spencer being listed as an advisor to President Donald Trump, and also presents assertions such as the subject being "alt-right" without providing evidence to support such an assertion. This calls into question the factual accuracy of the source, which should result in its removal by policy as noted above.

Other sources, such as those used for the "Rape Melania" sign accusation ([34], [35], and [36]) still present as fact something which has been retracted by the primary source used to generate those secondary sources (see footnote update here with linked reference here for primary source retraction). As such, these are also not reliable or verifiable sources within the policy guidelines, particularly those for biographies of living persons.

Additionally, the section on "Race relations" refers to claimed support of the "Fourteen Words" slogan. The sources given here are a tweet from someone who is not the subject [32] and and article cited as [33], which makes the assertion that Posobiec supports the slogan without providing evidence (again asking the encyclopedia to present an unbacked assertion as if it is fact) and is also by style and delivery, an opinion piece. Opinion pieces in the context of biographies of living persons have already been discussed as inappropriate sources for factual claims, particularly when they are not substantiated in the source. The use of a tweet is inappropriate as a source in a BLP because it is a self-published source not by the subject. Those sources are also used on the Fourteen Words page and the entry merits removal there under Wikipedia standards regarding sources.

This list is by no means exhaustive and is meant only to highlight that the often-repeated claims that the article is well-sourced with reliable and verifiable sources can be challenged and that the article needs a policy-prescribed cleanup. In some cases, the policy states that this should be done immediately and without discussion, but I believe discussion is productive, particularly in this case. At all times, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should seek to be accurate and use only verifiable and credible sources. Additional source issues can be discussed as the discussion progresses. Lastly, when dealing with sources, we should also be very careful in the biography of a living person to avoid feedback loops and to avoid circular reporting. For an extended time, this particular article has not been in compliance with Wikipedia's reliable sources and biographies of living persons standards and should be cleaned up. I would like to ask that anyone who may disagree please address the specific concern, and explain why the challenged source should remain, and to also make reference to the specific policy guideline under which that determination is made. Thank you all for your time and attention. Again, apologies for the length of this comment. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly apologizing for the length, you really, really should've just made this shorter. If you think a policy, guideline, or essay is useful, just link to it. Everyone else contributing to this talk page has already seen these policies and guidelines dozens and dozens of times before. When a brand-new editor starts lecturing about basics like this, it appear to be gish-galloping at best. Perhaps this is one reason editors have asked you to disengage.

There are many additional sources, including more recent sources, calling him alt-right. Changing this to far-right would be acceptable to me, but only if someone wants to compile sources to support this. It is not appropriate for editors to look at his behavior and decide that his politics are really something different from how reliable sources describe them. The CJR source's comment about Spencer is odd, but is not presented as a formal "listing", and this one error doesn't invalidate the entire source regardless.

The rape sign incident should, at a minimum, be rephrased to indicate this is a disputed accusation.

As for the Fourteen Words, the Miami New Times is a reliable source. It is not required to provide proof to your personal satisfaction. The tweet is incidental to this, and can be removed, but it does, at least superficially, provide the "proof" you are asking for. Posobiec has repeatedly and conspicuously used "14" and "88", in sequence, in ways which don't make any sense as anything other than a dogwhistle (nobody would normally describe a video as "14 minutes and 88 seconds"). There is no policy-based reason for disputing this fact, and it strains credulity to pretend this is not about race.

Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The long-standing version is fine. I've seen nothing to convince me that Ihuntrocks's preferred changes are improvements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that we are now reverting back to the assertion that the sources are reliable, without addressing any of the listed reasons why those sources aren't reliable with respect to the policies outlined. For example, stating that the Miami New Times is a reliable source may be generally correct, but does not address that the specific article used as a source is formatted as an opinion piece which makes an assertion without evidence. If the information is accurate, I feel it would not be difficult to provide other reliable sources that make the same assertion but do provide evidence and do so in a manner that isn't an opinion piece. Grayfell, could you provide such sources to support this? Additional sources which indisputably demonstrate policy compliance would, in my opinion, be most appropriate to alleviate policy complaints. That would be in keeping with the BLP policy on sources which are challenged or likely to be challenged. "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Thank you for the engagement. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Since sources were requested for the term "far-right" rather than "alt-right" I could suggest these five for starters: [1] which is already a source in the article, [2] which is also already used in the article, [3], [4], and [5]. Ihuntrocks (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

All sources are evaluated in context. Like I said, I don't object to changing this to "far-right". That said, these sources are mixed:

The Washington Post article is the most recent. It doesn't use the term "alt-right" at all.
The Vice source describes him as part of the far-right, and says in clear terms that Posobiec rejects the term "alt-right". It also says: Posobiec called the alt-right a "moving target." and quotes him as saying "... I don't know if that makes me alt-right but that's where I stand on politics." Hmm...
The Philly Mag one says Posobiec, along with the rest of the alt-right, was backing... It also goes into some detail about how this name shifted and came to be seen as a public relations issue.
Per The Atlantic: Posobiec was among a number of American alt-right internet personalities who amplified... The only place it uses "far-right" is the headline, which is not a good source for this kind of thing at all.
The first two sentences of The Hill source: President Trump retweeted a far-right figure on Saturday night. Trump retweeted Jack Posobiec, who is well-known for promoting debunked “alt-right” conspiracy theories.

Perhaps it would be best to use both terms. Use "far-right" in the first sentence, and provide a bit of context for "alt-right" and maybe also "alt-lite" later in the lead, so readers will have enough context to understanding what these sources are saying and why. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. The Atlantic was a bad include on my part due to the term only appearing in the headline, and I totally agree. Having mixed sources makes accurate classification difficult, and I think you are right about needing to provide more explanation so that readers will better understand. I'm not at all opposed to the historic affiliation with the term "alt-right" being included in the page and explained as we can find many verifiable sources and the subject has claimed the title in the past. My opposition would come in including it in the lead. Posobiec appears on the "alt-lite" Wikipedia page, and the ADL identifies him that way. He does not appear on the "alt-right" Wikipedia page, for what that's worth. You touched on the VICE source and I think it's worth noting the full statement Posobiec has no qualms in admitting that he's clearly right of centre but is adamant that he has no ties to people who espouse racist ideology like Richard Spencer—he explained that he doesn't consider himself in the alt-right (which he is frequently lumped into). On balance, I think the lead might be better as "far-right" in the first sentence as you suggested, followed by "alt-lite" with an inline explanation. With "alt-right" being a contentious term the subject has since declaimed, it seems like that is better left lower down where other historical information is conveyed. This would help keep the lead from being too busy/involved for readers and to also present what seems from sources to be the most current information about the subject in his biographical lead. It seems we would have reliable sources for all three terms which would be unlikely to be challenged. Ihuntrocks (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the description of "internet troll", the phillymag.com cite specifically quotes Posobiec himself as describing his previous activity as trolling, so I don't see how it can possibly be contentious. In that cite he says he's done with it, but that isn't relevant to the fact that his history of self-described trolling is a key part of his notability. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would consider contributing but quite frankly, I can't keep up with the rapidly changing definitions of words that meant one thing back in the 60s–70s but mean something entirely different today. What I do have confidence in knowing is that WP:LABEL clearly states that value-laden labels ...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. If that is what we're doing, then there is no problem. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

My previous comment about sources and the "alt-lite" still standing for source purposes, I do agree with Atsme about value-laden terms, in light of that policy. Both the terms "alt-right" and "alt-lite" are value-laden. The latter is actually a pejorative term coined by white nationalists to mock and demean those who are not them. It's questionable whether an encyclopedia should help them spread their message. I agree with Aquillion that the trolling is pretty well substantiated by sources, but also agree with Nblund that an inline explanation of that term and why it's used would be helpful for readers. "Fake news" also appears without citation (despite sharing overlap with conspiracy theories). With the subject working for a news outlet, that term is particularly contentious. It has appeared for a while, so if it should stay, we'd need not only a citation but one from a source that predates the earliest appearance of the term in the page's edit log to avoid possible issues with WP:Circular_reporting. Ihuntrocks (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree. Political ideologies are not value-laden labels, and it would be a very depressing world if politics, and the language of politics, never changed... or was "troll"? the value-laden label? The term has changed dramatically, but it is based as much in fishing terminology as folklore. Since there do not seem to be any sources disputing that this term applied, at least at some point, this doesn't seem controversial. We shouldn't be afraid of using direct language in articles, when it's appropriate.

Regardless, as a start, the body of the article should explain that he formerly described himself as a troll. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect to trolling, while it is true that the subject has described himself previously as a troll, we are also using a source, listed as [5] in the article from Phillymag, which quotes him as saying: Today, I’m formally announcing that I’m done with trolling. Its [sic] over. Its [sic] time to do the right thing. Other sources also indicate that he has given up trolling, such as an in a separate interview with Opslens: While Posobiec has admittedly engaged in trollish behavior in his past, he’s determined to move forward. If it's necessary to state that he claimed the label, it would seem necessary to state that he has stated he's ceased the behavior as well, as that's recorded by secondary sources. For something requiring that much nuanced discussion, it would seem inappropriate to leave it in the lead. Moving that discussion into the body of the article where it has sufficient room to be addressed would seem more appropriate.

With respect to value-loaded terms, political labels can certainly be value-loaded terms, and many are meant to be that way specifically. The fact that an average person who would be reading would be subject to being offended by misapplication of a political label to them should be sufficient to note that they are value-laden terms. Moreover, the loaded language entry defines loaded language as rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations associated with them in order to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Terms like "alt-right" and "alt-lite" have strong connotations and are meant to both invoke a response in the reader and to exploit stereotypes. Given that both of those terms would fall under the relatively more neutrally presented term "far-right" for which we also have reliable sources, it would seem most appropriate to use that term in the lead if a qualifier is needed, and to leave other terminology for discussion in the body where nuance has more room to be expanded if those terms are to be included at all. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You have added a lot of discussion, but nuance isn't created from discussion alone. On Wikipedia, nuance comes from sources. There are still a lot of source for the term "troll", as it refers to his behavior, self-described or not. He became notable for trolling behavior, and he later said he's done. Perhaps sources accept that announcement, or perhaps they don't, but... he's still notable as a troll either way. It surely doesn't help that trolling is about both self-promotional attention-seeking, and also frequently disingenuous behavior, but again, that's up to sources to decide, not editors.

As for "loaded language", this is an unworkable standard which misses the point. People do and say things which invoke a strong response all the time. A factual description of that behavior will invoke a strong response. That's not enough to make this loaded language. We don't avoid factual descriptions, or soften them with in weasel-words just because some people may feel strongly about them. To avoid clear language just because it "invokes a strong response" would be political correctness, or at least euphemistic. It would be a WP:Euphemism, even. If sources say in simple terms he is alt-right, there are not a lot of options for how Wikipedia can handle this. We can say he rejects the term, but we cannot add our own subtle editorializing about whether or not the term is appropriate when reliable sources use it as a factual description. Grayfell (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect to loaded terms and contentious political labeling, we would then need to find sources which support the assertions with evidence in the source's presentation, rather than expressing it as an ungrounded opinion. It is true that we are not to editorialize. It is also true that we are not to publish opinions as if they are facts, even if multiple sources present that opinion. That's made clear the in reliable sources policy regarding news organizations which states Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. That is not an opinion; that is policy.

The BLP policy on contentious material which is poorly sourced or unsourced states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is 1: unsourced or poorly sourced; [...] 4: relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards. Opinions expressed in a source without either context or demonstrating facts are just that -- opinions -- which cannot be verified.

Further, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, the policy on which states that you would have to make your case for why it should be included. While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Simply stating "sources say it" is clearly not sufficient. Value-laden descriptions which are presented as assertions without either context or evidence in a source are editorializing on the part of the source -- that is not acceptable in light of policy, which exists for a reason. If you wish to keep the information, it seems you'd have to find sources which present it with proper context and evidence, and not as inline editorial commentary. Ihuntrocks (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Ihuntrocks appears to be promoting original research, contrary to policy. Unless there is a dispute among reliable sources - which there is not, in this case - our job as WP editors is not to evaluate the labels employed by reliable sources - in this case, by news outlets - but sinply to report them as fact, while noting that the subject disavows the label if, in fact, he does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It would not seem that noting some sources which are used merely mention a term without giving any definition of the term, the context for the term, or evidence of why the term should be used or is applicable to the subject is original research. It is an observation about sources that are challenged or likely to be challenged. That particular policy for biographies of living persons holds that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Source evaluation is, quite clearly from multiple policies, a requirement for editors. It is one of the functions of an editor to help ensure that sources are both reliable and verifiable. If something is presented without definition, context, or evidence in a source, it is not verifiable and does not belong. This is not a matter of personal opinion or preference, but a matter of Wikipeida policies regarding sources. We are also to avoid gossip in BLPs, which would be the appropriate definition for terms employed in a source without definition, context, or evidence. At the very least, it would require a description to attribute that opinion to the particular author of the source article as you have mentioned, per the policy on newspapers and magazine blogs (and elsewhere) noting specifically If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..."

It would also be inaccurate to state that I am the only person raising issues. Nblund and Grayfell have both stated no opposition to the change from "alt-right" to a more descriptive or more accurate rendition in keeping with sources (ongoing discussion about exact implementation). Grayfell also provided some thoughtful analysis of sources listed above. The user Atsme has also objected to the use of value-laden terms, and that discussion is still ongoing. So far, there is a developing consensus that the article needs work in several places, with myself, Nblund and Grayfell having observed specific points which need work in various forms, and Atsme raising objections to the use of value-laden terms in the context of NPOV for BLPs. As a respondent, Newimpartial, you have also just stated that in-text explanations may be necessary for disputed information. There seems to be a strong developing consensus that the article needs work from a policy standpoint regarding NPOV and possibly regarding sources at this time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I simply do not see WP:V issues in the (non-op-ed) sources concerned, nor do the IDONTLIKEIT views of a number of editors make it so. It simply is not required per BLP that reporters give evidence for each adjective or label they use that must satisfy the evidential requirements of each Wikipedia editor. If there is general agreement among the available RSs that the terms apply - as I believe there is - then it simply is not our job to impose OR evidence requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that it would be appropriate to note in the text that the subject disavows the label if, in fact, he does as you stated above?

Separately, do you contend that assertions made without defintion, context, or evidence should not be given in-text attribution to the source author who makes that assertion without definition, context, or evidence for clarity? An inline citation is listed as a must in the BLP policy on sources which are challenged or likely to be challenged, specifically stating Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. The policy goes on to say that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion, though as previously stated, I believe discussion is important here, rather than simply removing it immediately without discussion as the policy prescribes. Clarification by Newimpartial is requested on these two issues in light of the user's above contributions to the discussion. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To reply these two questions I was asked:

1. if the subject does indeed disavow the label, and this can be reliably sourced, then it can be worth noting (if he only sometimes disavows it, as seems to be the case with "troll", then the disavowal is less likely to be DUE).

2. I assert that the "provision of definition, context or sources" is not a criterion for whether or not a label can or should be cited for a BLP subject in a WP article. Nationality offers an excellent parallel: as a general rule, we use the national labels for BLP subjects that are most often found in the best sources; we do not, as a rule, nitpick either geographical or family origin based on "definition, context or sources" in order to second-guess national labels, which can be equally or more contentious than political labels.

We can only apply labels for which reliable sources are available (and yes, citations are required when labels are challenged, though these citations should generally be found in the article body and not in the lede). Furthermore, we should only apply labels in wikivoice when they are uncontentious among the reliable sources. It is the quality of the sources - not the quality of evidence the sources to support the use of the label - that is the policy-relevant criterion here. And in particular, whether a label is contentious among Wikipedia editors is not a criterion for deciding whether it is appropriate to use a label, and whether it is appropriate to require in-text attribution for it - unless the label is disputed among reliable sources themselves. We have many, many activist editors on WP who like to dispute labels and characterizations based on FRINGE sourcing and BLP subject self-descriptions, and giving in to these IDONTLIKEIT concerns runs directly counter to building an encyclopedia. <end rant>

To take a step back, Ihuntrocks, your previous intervention stated that If something is presented without definition, context, or evidence in a source, it is not verifiable and does not belong. This is not a matter of personal opinion or preference, but a matter of Wikipeida policies regarding sources. As far as I know, this claim has been conjured out of whole cloth, and runs directly counter to WP:OR, which is an actual policy. We do not demand to see the evidence behind the descriptions provided by reliable sources. (This policy produces sub-optimal outcomes sometimes, as when journalists mis-report trial proceedings - in such cases we are required to stick to the best available secondary sources, which sometimes means leaving documented but incorrect "facts", when we know better based on primary sources, until better secondary sources are published. But no superior alternative has yet reached consensus.) There are certain areas, such as MEDSRS or accusations of criminality, where we have even higher sourcing standards, but the application of political labels on which reliable sources agree is not such an area. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this discussion covering such a broad range of issues that it has become meandering and rather unwieldy? May I suggest calling a survey (or RfC for whoever feels enterprising) and narrowing it down to a choice between (A) yada, yada or (B) yada yada?? A 2018 Newsweek article describes the guy as "the "alt-right" internet activist best known for the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory". Politifact describes him as "...a conservative activist who frequently supports Donald Trump on Twitter." Vox calls him, " alt-right activist Jack Posobiec". My suggestion would be "alt-right internet activist". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The present lead reads as a tabloid, with every possible bad label thrown out there. It is not balanced. (Redacted) 00:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- (Redacted), it does not, and I don't know why you think of these labels as "bad" labels. Don't you think alt-righters should be proud of being alt-righters? Please, if you come here after a dozen or so edits on Wikipedia, don't come without specific evidence for the generalizing claims you make. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, it is worth noting that, as noted in the discussion above with Grayfell, the subject's article already uses a source from VICE listed as [12] where the subject states he's not affiliated with the alt-right, and does describe his politics. In the discussion above, Grayfell also points out that sources are mixed on characterization. Nblund has also expressed thoughts regarding this term in light of sources. Notably, though, Grayfell and I have discussed this issue with respect to sources, and Grayfell provided a thoughtful analysis which is worth noting regarding this term. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the sources are bad as I would have to look, but the main issue is how much is enough to convey the issues to the reader. Excessive details as shown here in this article are simply WP:COATRACKed and not written in encyclopedic tone. The last 2/3rds of this article is just very bad form.--MONGO (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Be specific. Oh, and "look" (kind of expected before one comments) Volunteer Marek 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm being cited, I'll say it again: I do not actively oppose changing alt-right to far-right if sources support it. That's all I am saying. I agree with Atsme that this is unwieldy. Hopefully that isn't by design. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In looking at WP:Coatrack, I would have to agree with MONGO regarding the bulk of the subject's page. Bearing in mind the caution from both Atsme and Grayfell about the discussion being unwieldy, and with a mind toward generating WP:Consensus, I will stick to the first two sentences of the subject's page in this comment. I hope this will satisfy Volunteer Marek's request to Be specific.

The article opens (citations and pronunciation omitted): John Michael Posobiec III (born December 14, 1985) is an American alt-right internet troll and conspiracy theorist best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter. He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.

I cannot speak for MONGO, but with respect to WP:Coatrack, four items immediately spring to the fore: The sections A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing, But it's true!, The Attack Article, and Fact Picking, with the first two tying directly into one another.

With respect to A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing, the article's first sentence names the subject, then immediately layers on negative information about the subject before it mentions that he is best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter. This causes the "best known" feature of the subject, according to the article, to be sandwiched between the initial negative characterization alt-right internet troll and conspiracy theorist and He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring. Immediately, the subject is both obscured beneath negative criticism and has the "best known" aspect obscured by an equally long sentence describing a specific conspiracy theory. This ties directly into But it's true!, with nearly the entire section on that topic being applicable here. Most notably and apropos of the specific topic at hand, If an article about a famous journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and possibly that he is a vocal advocate of the theory (which can cause major problems if the journalist is alive). The coverage of the journalist in Wikipedia needs to reflect the coverage of the journalist in reliable sources., with "section" substituted for "article" in terms of the biographical lead.

According to How to create and manage a good lead section, The importance of the lead is evident when one sees the statistics for sections opened by mobile phone users (see image). 60% read only the lead. [emphasis added]. With a substantial number of readers known to read only the lead, particularly mobile users, an average reader unfamiliar with the subject would be led to believe that the subject is primarily associated with that particular conspiracy theory. An examination of the body of the article indicates that, while this topic is covered, there is substantial additional information available about the subject from reliable sources, and that coverage of the subject does not primarily consist of discussion or advocacy of this particular conspiracy theory.

The overwhelmingly negative characterization created by these two opening sentences comes very close to the style listed for the WP:Coatrack topic The Attack Article in this respect in terms of subject characterization and diminishing of what is listed, per the article, as the subject's most notable item (his pro-Donald Trump tweets). The selected presentation also lends itself to the WP:Coatrack section on Fact Picking (entire section applicable) in this respect.

Within just the first two sentences of the article, these WP:Coatrack issues present themselves and would seem to warrant a rewrite. The present form is not suitable for a biography of a living person with respect to neutral point of view. I hope that others will have something constructive and insightful to offer in addition to this portion of the discussion regarding the two opening sentences of the article. Particularly, I'd really like to hear more from MONGO with respect to the WP:Coatrack issues, as that user first raised this concern. Thank you all. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ihuntrocks, the above intervention is quite absurd. The A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing coatrack type would apply if the lede used the article on tthe subject to digress into the detail of tthe conspiracy theory - but it does not, it simply observes what the subject is most known for, per RS. Similarly, the But it's true! coatrack type could apply if the information provided in the article were UNDUE with respect to what reliable sources say about the subject. Howecer, far from being an attack page, the article is actually quite judicious and restrained compared to what the best of the RS have to say. So this whole coatrack question seems to be entirely mis-framed, at best... Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I appreciate you weighing in. Some notes on sourcing seem to be appropriate here, and examples will be provided for the first potentially slanted term in the first sentence, "alt-right." The guideline verifiability does not guarantee inclusion tells us While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. A case will need to be made for why this information actually improves the article.

With respect to the three sources used for the term "alt-right", they should be evaluated with respect to one of the three core principles: no original research. I mention this specifically for the requirements that sources cited must be reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. [italics in original] with the same going on to state that In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. [emphasis added] The citations for the term "at-right" are as follows, with specific material from each source:

[2] (CJR): The statement used to justify the term is: Alt-right influencers like Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, and Paul Joseph Watson latched onto the story, as did Breitbart and Drudge Report. No other mentions are made of Posobiec in the article. The term "alt-right" is applied without context, and without example. It is not directly supported in the article, and is also mentioned in passing (the term is "alt-right influencer"). Further, the definition given for "alt-right" in the article is in conflict with a description of the subject in another reliable source, making it contentious information that is likely to be challenged. Specifically, the source defines "alt-right" as Take the term “alt-right,” a neologism coined by white nationalist and Trump advisor Richard Spencer. Their beliefs are nothing new: garden-variety racism mixed with economic isolationism and a heavy dose of misogyny. Contrast with VICE source [12] featured below. This source is not due any space in the biographical lead and is a non-starter. It should be "be removed immediately and without discussion" per BLP policy.

[3] (ABC): The term "alt-right" appears only in the headline, and never appears in the article in any form. The headline simply reads Trump retweets alt-right activist who pushed 'Pizzagate' conspiracy. Headlines are not a reliable source, particularly if that information never appears again in the article. This is not a reliable source by any stretch and should never have been used as as citation for this term in a biography of a living person as it counts as poor sourcing and should be removed immediately and without discussion per the same.

[4] (CNN): This source is clearly labeled as Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large. The BLP policy on news organizations as sources states plainly that News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. It then goes on to say Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. [italics and boldface added] That source is in no way acceptable as a reliable source. To further that, the only mention of the term "alt-right" in the article is That Posobiec has pushed conspiracy theories and is a card-carrying member of the alt-right doesn't matter to Trump which isn't at all directly supported in the article. Even if it wasn't an analysis/opinion piece, it would be a passing mention without direct support. It should be "be removed immediately and without discussion" per BLP policy.

We can and should go on from there with analyzing sources to ensure that they are in fact reliable sources by policy. It could not be more clear from policy and analysis of the sources in context that the only three sources used for this term in the biographical lead are not reliable sources.

It should be noted that there is a source already used in the subject's article which does directly support political characterization with respect to the "alt-right" terminology. That is source [12] (VICE). I will include it here for an example of what a source that employs direct support looks like, from a piece that is neither analysis nor a passing mention. The source states: Posobiec has no qualms in admitting that he's clearly right of centre but is adamant that he has no ties to people who espouse racist ideology like Richard Spencer—he explained that he doesn't consider himself in the alt-right (which he is frequently lumped into). Posobiec called the alt-right a "moving target." "When it comes to nationalism, absolutely, I'm an American nationalist," said Posobiec. "I believe in borders and in culture. I believe in general in limited government, lower taxes that kind of thing. I'm pro-life, Christian, pro-gun, I don't know if that makes me alt-right but that's where I stand on politics." That's direct support in a reliable source.

If we are going to keep saying "reliable sources" then each source used absolutely must conform to the reliable sources policy. Further, per verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, anyone wanting to include information about a living person needs to explain why that information improves the article, and cannot merely say "sources say" as the justification. With the neutrality of the article in dispute, justification is needed. This is doubly so because it is a biography of a living person and triply so because it is an American Politics 2 topic. Given the questions surrounding the sources for merely the first contentious term (contentious in the normal sense and contentious among sources; see above discussion of sources with Grayfell (stance clarified by user above, please reference for context) on this topic to note that source are mixed, and the example included in this comment which is already used as source in the subject's article), the WP:Coatrack issues first raised by MONGO and for which I have sought to provide analysis simply through the first two sentences cannot be dismissed with a simple "sources say." That the sources are not reliable sources in this regard reinforces the idea of the WP:Coatrack topic The Attack Article. I would like to close this particular reply with a reminder that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Thank you all again. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The above contribution, although addressed to me, does not actually address the issues I raised above. It is in fact a clear violation of WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:CPUSH, particularly through the rapid movement of goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Coatrack doesn't really have anything to do with the sources...it has to do with the way the material is presented, how much is needed to provide examples that satisfy the argument etc. The problem with this article, especially since it is a BLP, is that we have sections with tidbits of information arraigned in a bullet point format which in turn looks like the article exists solely to attack the subject. The bullet pointed style invites more "coats" like a coatrack...and not all those coats are coats at all, but merely little snipes that really don't do much to enhance the article. My suggestion is to eliminate the least explosive charges then take what remains and format it into paragraphs.--MONGO (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, thank you for that clarification on WP:Coatrack.

Newimpartial, I am not sure how to address assertions about sources without addressing the specific sources themselves. I apologize for what is considered poor form, but find the allegation of WP:CPUSH to be a lack of presumption of good faith, as I addressed only source and policy issues, without providing any reference to a personal belief about the subject. Sources which don't suffer from the same policy deficiencies outlined above would be perfectly acceptable, regardless of their content relative to the subject. That's in keeping with neutral point of view -- the sources say what they say, so long as they are reliable sources. I would ask you in the future, if possible, not to conflate poor form such as WP:WALLOFTEXT with bad faith and do not bite the newcomers. I nonetheless thank you for your response.

I think MONGO's WP:Coatrack description is better than mine, and I defer to that user on this issue and wish to signify agreement. Having been here nearly 15 years and contributed to over a dozen featured articles, I think MONGO is in a good position to help us turn this C-class article into a GA or A-class article and remedy its many deficiencies. Thank you all. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bumping this topic since everyone seemed to have gone silent when the full admin lock was temporarily placed on the page, and the NPOV tag has been removed with a reference to a lack of discussion, which was simply dropped in place. NPOV issues still remain, as can be readily observed from the discussion above, and the article is still a WP:Coatrack in severe need of reworking to bring it in line with WP:BLP standards. Is anyone willing to address the coatrack issues with this article? Ihuntrocks (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I will address them, then. Per policy and what WP:COATRACK actually means, there are no COATRACK issues in this article. In general, issues are discussed in this article in relation to the article's subject and in proportion to the way they are discussed in reliable sources. Anyone alleging a COATRACK violation needs to demonstrate that issues are discussed here that are unrelated to the subject's most notable activity (according to WP criteria) or are treated in an UNDUE fashion compared to the way reliable sources treat them. Literally nobody who objected to the current article text has done this. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The coatrack issues were discussed here by MONGO and no one bothered to discuss them afterward. The concerns MONGO has raised are legitimate in light of WP:Coatrack and should be addressed in this BLP article. To state that the issues weren't pointed out is simply not correct. Users have attempted to trim down the article and fix the coatrack issue, as evidenced by the article body text here (lead aside), though the text should still be put into prose rather than a list. Here is a diff of that version and the current version. For those wishing to defend the current version, you will need to provide reasoning for why this improves the article. The onus is on those wishing to include that information. Verifiability alone does not suffice. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been no policy-based argument that a bulleted list vs. paragraphs is a COATRACK issue, nor has evidence been produced that there is any UNDUE content included in the current version. One Admin expressing their personal opinion is neither evidence nor policy-compliant argument. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV dispute (January 2020)

I have reopened an inquiry into the neutrality of this article at WP:NPOVN. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

PoV and PROSE tags in "Political Activities" section.

I have added a PoV tag in the said section due to review on Wikipedia's guidelines on having a WP:Neutral point of view in writing articles. The text in the said section violates the guidelines on encyclopedic content by having an bias that is seemingly directed against the person in question. The sources have information that contain editorial bias, and it is our duty, we Wikipedians, to eliminate these for us to be able to judge ourselves the facts that are being presented, not being spoonfed with a specific PoV that a certain political group has.

And please, rewrite the bullet list into a prose, at least 1 paragraph for each subcategory, for a better reading experience.

Cheers. EdgeOfSzon (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdgeOfSzon: The fact that there are editors removing the pov tag when there is clearly and blatantly an NPOV dispute speaks volumes about the bias surrounding this article. You can and should put the tag back, but there's always gonna be another editor to revert it, and then you can't revert them cause of 3RR. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bold edit rationale and further discussion to fix NPOV

I recently made a sweeping change to the article in an attempt to 1. Make it sound more objective and 2. Converting the list section into prose, because it reads like a "shit-list". Here are the changes:

1. Removing "internet troll" and replacing it with "political activist". The source that the claim was attached to can be found here. After personally reading through the article (you are welcome to do so yourself, because I am not going to analyze it any further here), I determined that it was an incredibly opinionated column written by an adversary. One common argument that is brought up against this is that Wikipedia should reflect what "reliable sources" state, even when the content from a "reliable" source is very clearly biased. The column is written by a columnist who has something against Posobiec, and is using the site as a medium for distribution. All it does is label Posobiec as an internet troll.

2. Adding Posobiec's denial of the label "alt-right" to the lead section. My rationale behind this edit lies in the lead sections of Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, where they are labeled as such but doesn't fail to make mention of their own self-identity, like this article does. I moved a statement that was already on the page up into the lead section.

3. Replacing "he" with "Posobiec" and changing "rebelled against" to "challenged". This one should be self explanatory. The repeated use of "he" makes it sound like whoever wrote that particular paragraph personally knows Posobiec. "Rebelled against" is language that again attempts to portray him in negative light.

4. Changing "one of the biggest promoters" to "actively promoted". Again, self explanatory. Very clearly biased/subjective language.

5. 2016 Richard Spencer incident. I reworded the statement because it reads like "Posobiec praised white supremacist Richard Spencer. After receiving backlash, he called him a scumbag to save face". Compare to my statement which reads as "Posobiec made a tweet praising white supremacist Richard Spencer. Posobiec later deleted the tweets and called him a scumbag." This leaves more interpretation to the reader rather than attempting to tell the reader what we think.

6. 2016 "Rape Melania" incident. There is no concrete evidence or irrefutable proof that Posobiec was the one holding up the sign, and as such, I added the word "allegedly".

7. Removing "falsely claimed" from the Comey statement. This one I can see why it could be seen as softening up the language, and I wouldn't mind if this was reintroduced.

8. Making note that the Caesar play explicitly depicted a Trump-like figure being assassinated. The previous statement failed to mention that Caesar was being assassinated, which made it sounds like Posobiec protested the play just because Caesar looked like Trump. He disrupted the play because it depicted Trump being assassinated.

9. Changing "encouraged his Twitter followers" to "doxxed". The tweet in question did not explicitly tell his Twitter followers to harass the woman, but rather implicitly implied to his Twitter followers "hey, I'm leaking this woman's personal info, do what you want with that". Another one that I am open to reverting, however.

10. Moving the Bumble app incident from his personal life into political activities. I made this change because coupled along with the Tanya Tay sentence, it only served to imply that Posobiec was committing adultery. I felt it was more appropriate to put it into political activities, as I think personal life sections of BLPs should be as neutral as possible.

11. Removing "Belorusian" from Tanya Tay's description. Completely irrelevant statement which serves to depict Posobiec as prejudiced in his choices regarding women. Imagine if you came across the sentence "Barack Obama married Michelle Obama, who is black.". It's simply irrelevant.

I welcome feedback on the changes. But please, keep it civil. I feel like people think I'm only making the edit to make Posobiec sound "worse than he actually is". CatcherStorm ^talk 13:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for these sweeping changes and I have reverted them per BRD. Please gain consensus before making major changes which weaken reliably-sourced descriptions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)\

Thank you for your great contribution to this discussion! CatcherStorm ^talk 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Making major undiscussed changes to a contentious article anywhere is likely to result in similar outcomes. You have proposed a wide array of changes in a single edit, some of which are probably positive and acceptable but others of which are clearly disputed. Then you remove an generally-accepted reliable source (a major metropolitan general interest magazine) claiming that the source is "biased/opinionated," and with no further explanation. On what grounds do you make this assertion? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you refuse to take the time to read through the actual article, here is what I have against this source.

1. The author of the column, Jonathan Valania, is demonstrably a left-leaning author shown by his contributions to Philly Mag. He has repeatedly covered topics with a left-leaning agenda, as seen at this article he wrote praising the anti-Trump "resistance".

2. The title of the column labels Posobiec as "the king of fake news", which is quite obviously an opinion.

3. The subtitle of the column labels Posobiec as "the Trump troll the Internet loves to hate". Again, very clearly an opinion.

4. Read through the very first paragraph of the column:

If it wasn't abundantly clear that this isn't an objectively neutral report on Posobiec, but rather a borderline smear page, it is clear here. It's like he's telling a story.

5. Another paragraph worth mentioning:

And I think I'll stop there. If you still cannot see my objections to using this article as a source, I don't know what to say to you. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Terribly biased article... followed him on Twitter a long time, he’s an independent journalist who did research on Pizzagate that no one else would touch, also on Seth Rich. He made a lot of enemies and it shows in this article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"Pizzagate" is, as our article on it discusses, entirely-debunked nonsense bullshittery which put actual people's lives at risk. By "research" you mean "made shit up," right? The reliable sources are crystal-clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Keep claiming that other editors are just "making shit up" because they dared to have a different opinion from yours. You're making your intentions here crystal clear. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are claiming that Pizzagate ever had any merit whatsoever, your WP:COMPETENCE to edit on this topic is questionable. Reliable sources are unanimous in declaring it entirely fabricated libelous nonsense. Internet trolls made up false claims about living people, and this encyclopedia is clear that those claims are and always were fabricated. That's not an opinion, that's undisputed fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack began investigating Pizzagate before it was called Pizzagate and before we knew children’s lives were not at risk and the man with a gun investigated. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There was never anything to "investigate" - it is and always was a pile of fabricated nonsense made up by chanboard trolls. Anyone who ever at any point gave it any credence is categorically unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Glad CatcherStorm is trying to clean this mean article up! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If you truly believe that any part of Pizzagate is or was true, you lack the competence required to edit that subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s not a fair analogy. I could say the same about you! (Redacted) I followed it immediately on Reddit before it was banned. There was a lot of smoke but no fire, especially since there was no basement and the old subway tunnels didn’t reach that neighborhood. This article is a biased BLP about a good man, though I don’t agree with him about everything, the Devil is a slanderer (see etymology of devil), this article is slanderous. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No, just no. The fact that you believe anything you "followed immediately on Reddit" demonstrates you can't edit this topic area. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a dog in this fight however I have restored this source as it broke 14 other references and would leave a large portion of it unsourced. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV tag

I believe that the NPOV tag should be reinstated. The fact that the current set of editors pushing for changes may be small or that there is currently no consensus for changes does not justify the removal of an NPOV tag. Indeed, NPOV tags by nature precede discussion and consensus. Unless it's been placed by a fringe group of editors raising the same arguments over and over again after consensus has been set, NPOV tags for active POV discussions should generally stay on.--Jancarcu (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's been placed by a fringe group of editors raising the same arguments over and over again after consensus has been set - exactly. It has. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus does not appear to have been set. We cannot claim consensus to have been set if several problems, such as how the attribution of opinionated labels like "internet troll" in WP:Wikivoice is inappropriate, remain unaddressed. We must also avoid potentially smothering future discussion by removing NPOV tags drawing attention to the problems on this page and then circularly claiming that re-adding tag would not be necessary because the discussion has ended.Jancarcu (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If the policy-compliant consensus is that there is no problem, then there is no problem. If you think their are "local consensus"-related issues, the solution would be a BLP or NPOV noticeboard discussion, and certainly not edit warring over a template. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The policy-compliant consensus so far appears to be that there could be a problem. User:CatcherStorm made several arguments that do not appear to have been substantively responded to on the grounds of policy, beyond assertions that consensus in favour of CatcherStorm's proposals has not formed yet, which is irrelevant when we're trying to have a discussion in order to form consensus. Although some of CatcherStorm's arguments do appear to go too far, they are generally defensible under WP:Wikivoice's rules on how opinion judgments, even when they are made by reliable RS, should be attributed. Both sides have potentially defensible arguments, so it is premature to remove the NPOV tag.Jancarcu (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. The purpose of an NPOV tag is to notify readers that the content in the article is being disputed. You can see that the previous dispute that was filed became inactive after exhaustive debate. I don't think that means consensus was established. I have valid concerns about the article as do several other editors, removing the NPOV tag citing "fringe editing" is a slap in the face telling them that their concerns are somehow not valid. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your argument that the subject "researched" Pizzagate is pretty far-out FRINGE POV, though, and not very ENC. There were sensible proposals in your edits, but the baby was drowned in the POV bathwater. Anyway, NPOVN will sort it out. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, are you talking to me or Jancarcu? If you're talking to me, I never made any such argument. You may have confused Raquel Baranow's comments with mine. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The deleted versions are confusing me, but I thought your 21:15 edit on the 28th took that position. Perhaps you misread the comment to which you replied? Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I objected to the user accusing Raquel Baranow of "making shit up" when she was simply expressing her opinion. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You misread. I said that Posobiec "made shit up" because his "coverage" of Pizzagate was entirely and purely nonsense. The "opinion" that there is any validity to Pizzagate is, indeed, "making shit up," because the entire thing is fabricated nonsense. The fact that Jack Posobiec believed that Pizzagate is real and purportedly attempted to "investigate" it (which per reliable sources, included entering and livestreaming a child's birthday party before being unceremoniously trespassed from the premises) demonstrates that he is not fit to be taken seriously as a journalist. Anyone who claims that Posobiec's Pizzagate nonsense is being treated unfairly here is simply wrong. Competency is required and someone who believes Pizzagate is real is not competent to edit in that topic area. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That is the single most entitled and arrogant statement I've read on this site since I signed up 6 years ago. See bullet point 5 of WP:CIRNOT. You're essentially telling that editor she isn't competent because she thinks Pizzagate is real. I'm somewhat glad you are making these comments though, because you continue to show that you absolutely despise Posobiec and it is what is driving your stance on this article. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct, anyone who believes Pizzagate is real is not competent to edit related articles, because it is factually not real. Same goes for someone who believes that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals - that is factually not real and they are not competent to edit articles related to AIDS. In both cases WP:FRINGE applies - these are extremist fringe viewpoints given zero credence in reliable sources, and thus we give them no credence either. For a longtime editor, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of this policy.

I don't "despise" Posobiec, I merely believe that this article should treat him as reliable sources do - as a discredited fringe conspiracy theorist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing the whole article to paint Posobiec as solely a discredited fringe conspiracy theorist simply because he was involved with Pizzagate when he is notable for other activities doesn't sound neutral at all. And either way, calling someone incompetent is a personal attack. The editor in question didn't make any edits to the page that would suggest that Pizzagate is real. Remember that we're on the talk page. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) Here’s a good article] showing the kind of stuff I (and probably Jack too) was reading on Reddit as it was being reported at the time, contemporaneously. Add it all together, it’s a lot of smoke but no fire/ victims. Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What you purport to be a good article is in fact an anonymous conspiracy-theory blog publishing false and defamatory claims about living people. I have redacted the link and if you reinsert it, I'll request sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reinstated the POV in the "Political Activities" section as the text shows a biased standpoint against the person in question.

(Redacted) Here’s a good article showing the kind of stuff I (and probably Jack too) was reading on Reddit as it was being reported at the time, contemporaneously. Add it all together, it’s a lot of smoke but no fire/ victims. Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not a "good article," it's an anonymous blog full of blatant BLP violations, and if you reinsert it, I'll request you be sanctioned for promoting libelous claims about a living person. There was never any "smoke" and anonymous false conspiracy theorizing is unacceptable. @Doug Weller: you may want to have a look at this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, please do not cite blatant conspiracy theory blogs. You are weakening my position. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

An edit from a WP:Neutral point of view is needed for this tag to be removed. The bullet list should be replaced with a paragraph or 2 dedicated for the category of that topic to make it look WP:BETTER

EdgeOfSzon (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@@Newimpartial: your removal of the PoV tag is a blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines on WP:Neutral point of view as it has been confirmed by @CatcherStorm that the PoV tag should be there.

And you didn't explain yourself further in the talk page that I have created specifically for that edit. EdgeOfSzon (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment - NPOV dispute

The main discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jack_Posobiec. There are concerns regarding the neutrality of the article, specifically with some of the sources used and the list format of the political activities section. As I would prefer not to reiterate, please read the discussion at NPOVN thoroughly. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no RFC here. This is just telling us to read a different discussion.--Jorm (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lies.

Cool story. Nothing actionable; will be a waste of time to engage.--Jorm (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wikipedia bio on Jack Posobiec is lies. Annie Reed (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Nothing actionable, per yoooshzzz.--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page is defamatory, wilfully so, and should be deleted. 172.195.80.195 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done Nothing actionable has been provided.--Jorm (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bumblegate

I think it should be reminded in the "personal life" paragraph that he was caught trying to cheat on his wife on the dating app Bumble, only 3 months after their wedding. Bumble banned him from their platform due to his links to white supremacism. https://mashable.com/2018/01/24/jack-posobiec-banned-bumble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.80.44.25 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you got any better sourcing than that? That appears to be a pretty minimal, clickbaity article, and does not confirm that the account actually belonged to Posobiec. Without better sourcing, it seems like an insignificant, tabloidy thing to try to introduce to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We used to include that content, citing these two sources [2], [3], but it was removed by DFS last month as "not notable." Perhaps they could comment. I could go either way. R2 (bleep) 06:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was included in a huge, disorganized list of career-related facts about him. If it is inserted in Personal Life with proper sourcing, that seems fine. DFS (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This wiki is obviously bias

This article has no credibility as it throws around such terms as "internet troll" and "alt right." The author uses the term "far right" for practically all organizations mentioned. This is on reason entities such Wikipedia are pretty much garbage, as the "far left" seek discredit anyone they don't agree with.

Phoey on the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:DE00:4A:8DC:E497:3187:13E0 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many authors. Please read the thread immediately above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish folk would learn how to conjugate the word "bias".--Jorm (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Posobiec worked for One America back in 2020

When did Posobiec go to work for One America? Surely not in 2021 as suggested in this article. Sooner2020 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sooner2020, thanks. indeed it is 2018. Mvbaron (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda

Jack Posobiec served our country many tours. Why is there some nonsense here, that he is a white supremacist siting an article that someone wrote, with zero facts to support that claim. Isn’t that slander? And a lot of other references that are not true... Disgusting An Everyday American (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@An Everyday American: Can you please be specific as to what statements in this article are not supported by sourcing? From what I can see, all statements that mention white supremacy are well-sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is a hit piece. Withdraw it if a neutral one cannot be created. The sooner the better....Lmlmss44 (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lmlmss44: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually gone through the sources, Gorilla Warfare? The Huff Post one mentions how Posobiec called the alt-right a "cancer." It also mentions how he condemns white supremacy. How is this well-sourced when it literally debunks the claim it is sourced for? Haydoggy (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Haydoggy

Poorly Written

The entire page is filled with debunked, misleading, and opinionated statements. I would highly encourage someone to rewrite the introduction without the "alt-right, alt-lite, conspiracy theorist, and internet troll" falsehoods. I'm also not sure why white supremacy is mentioned here as he has no ties to it. It also appears that the majority approve of rewriting this article. (See other sections.) Haydoggy (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Haydoggy

An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources consistently describe Posobiec that way (and they do), then so too will this Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume you haven't taken a glance at the sources? The HuffPost one mentions that Posobiec called the alt-right a "cancer." It also mentions how he no longer wants to be called a member of the alt-right. So how is he a member of the alt-right when both of these statements debunk that? Also, it appears that the majority of the people on the talk page are in agreement that the article is poorly written and is thus, in need of revision. Haydoggy (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Haydoggy

Yes, after the debacle in Charlottesville, Posibiec tried to distance himself from a term he had previously embraced. But this is an article about his entire career, not how he positions himself in 2021. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? If it were to be based on his entire career, then why does it not say “former alt-right,” but instead, just “alt-right?” And also, you can’t claim somebody is “alt-right” when the things that are sourced to prove it are themselves arguably “alt-left.” Also, why do far-left figures such as Cenk Uygur not have the terms “alt-left” or “far left” in their introduction? The same thing can be said about someone such as Palmer Report. Hayden 4747 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Still heavily biased and poorly written after all these complaints? Wikipedia, you should be sued for defamation. The reliable sources argument fails because you're defining heavily biased sources as most reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:B95B:6A67:98DC:B1EE (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE, for one. But if you would like to discuss the reliability of a source, please be more specific; there are 57 sources used in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradicting the actual Wikipedia Article

I don't know much about Jack Posobiec and went to Wikipedia to read more about him. When I saw the line

 "In June 2017, shortly after Republican congressman Steve Scalise was shot and injured during a baseball practice, along with four others, 
 Posobiec falsely tweeted that it was a terrorist attack and blamed comments from liberal anti-Trump individuals."

I thought huh, isn't that along the lines of what happened? If you go to the Wikipedia article about the attack linked as a reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting), it says

 "Hodgkinson was a leftwing political activist[10][11] from Belleville, Illinois, while Scalise was a Republican member of Congress. The 
 Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism... fueled by rage against Republican legislators".[12] 
 Scalise was the first sitting member of Congress to have been shot since Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011.[13]".

And while you can't directly attribute liberal rhetoric to the attack, if Trump's language is bad enough to cause violence (which I think it is), I don't see why the same can't be said about the same thing from angry, violent liberals (which definitely exist in droves in my opinion, just like there are angry, violent conservatives).

It seems like the two Wikipedia articles are directly contradicting each other because Jack Posobiec is considered an odious character and someone decided it's okay to paint him as a lunatic on this point even when the source presented is in agreement with Jack's views. I'm not going to spend the time looking at the rest of the accusations, and they might very well all be true, but this one seemed pretty fishy to me and I have a hard time trusting this article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.73.174 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, I don't see the source says that particular claim was false, so I removed "falsely." soibangla (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021