Talk:Jackson Hinkle/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Viral

@DFlhb: Care to show me where exactly the two in-line citations support the claim? Because as far as I can see, neither does. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If the claim you're referring to is "viral disinformation": both The Times and The Guardian describe him as "prolific"/"thriving" and as having spread false claims (often per The Times). The Guardian documents several instances of false claims made by Hinkle that went viral.
Personally I think particularly regarding is awkward and sounds editorialised. How about changing it to Hinkle gained significant attention on X, where he has spread viral.... DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@DFlhb: I don't know if you are deliberately misinterpreting my question or not; I am asking you specifically about the claim that "Hinkle gained significant attention on X, particularly regarding his viral disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war." Which of the two in-line citations support this claim? He has had his following base reach millions because of posting about the war, not just because of his misinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if you are deliberately misinterpreting my question or not Then you should know that I'm not. You didn't specify which claim and the section heading just says "viral". I've already said I don't like the previous wording; my reason for reverting the change (and one previous change) was the attribution of "disinformation" despite no source disputing it. Let's not escalate a misunderstanding into assuming bad faith.
How about the following, which is a copyedit of your change? Following his deplatforming, Hinkle gained significant attention on X for his tweets about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, some of which were disinformation.
It changes particularly regarding the to for his tweets about the, and some of which was described to be to some of which were. DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
We can keep viral, because this is well documented, but it's true that it's a leap to suggest he went viral because of misinformation. My suggestion would be Following his deplatforming, Hinkle went viral on X over his tweets about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, some of which were disinformation. At least 20% of posts weren't misinformation, so gotta give credit where it's due. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Better than my suggestion. DFlhb (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not different in substance from what I wrote and you reverted...? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I've explained my issue above. Looking back I should have copyedited it rather than reverted it. DFlhb (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a revert was not necessary, hence my questions above. Looking forward to see your copyedit instated. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Great, that's resolved then. First time we've reached consensus without enormous and unproductive discussion. This is a proud moment, genuinely. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It takes a bunch of reasonable editors for these moments, a rarity these days unfortunately. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Heartwarming scenes, as Wikipedia editors in a contentious topic find a consensus quickly and amicably. Never did I think I'd see the day. But in all sincerity, I was going to leave a note about "described to be misinformation" rather than just "were misinformation", so glad to see that's been sorted. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm so glad you didn't 😉 There are enough reliable sources pointing out that the misinformation was in fact, misinformation. We need to be careful about the use of disinformation, because this implies intent to deceive, but that's another can of worms. Even JC doesn't claim JH spreads disinformation, as that could be defamation. Guardian doesn't care though. Virtually impossible to prove disinfo these days. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Instagram

Was he really banned from Instagram? The Guardian article shows a correction that he was only banned for 24 hours. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if The Guardian corrected that is was only for 24 hours, it needs correcting. Or just remove. No-one care about a 24 hour suspension. Clearly not a real ban. Pls remove. [1] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok I removed, as I remember I added this some time ago (obviously without noting the correcting, my bad). It was while we were all distracted by indepth discussion on Maga Communism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relationship

Hi there, I am not going to get involved with the wiki wars about his page, I just need someone to change the status about his relationship in the past tense https://56orb.ru/news/2023-12-16/miss-rossiya-orenburzhenka-anna-linnikova-porvala-s-amerikantsem-i-vozvraschaetsya-domoy-3130531 Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

The following paragraph should be removed: "Hinkle has a history of publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories, which led him to be banned for a number of social media websites, and has been the subject of several controversies.[16] His show on Twitch was removed for violating misinformation policies and propagating disinformation about the war in Ukraine.[9][11] Following his deplatforming,"

Reason: 1. There is no proof of that. 2. The links provided ij the reference are from Israeli sources. It's not fair to use a reference about Jackson from the same source that he criticizes. 3. The articles in the reference links represent the views of the Israeli sources and don't mean that Jackson has a history of misinformation and is resorting to talk about the Israeli/Palestinian war to continue his misinformation and to get more views on X platform. 2607:FEA8:F49B:3C00:386B:28DC:4EE8:B765 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello (music) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hinkle's politics

Is Jackson Hinkle even a Marxist or conservative? No Marxist would support Trump. No conservative would support Xi.

His politics are incoherent if anything. KlayCax (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should leave both out of the lead for the time being. (Outside of saying what he self-describes as.) KlayCax (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The descriptions should summarize, carefully, the emphases of the best available RS, per WP:BLP, WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. His self-descriptions can be noted, but what the RS say is more important per the Wikipedia PAGs. Llll5032 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've made changes based on MOS:OPEN, in order to provide the context for what Hinkle is known for, rather than his history, views, etc. Also combined the Twitter viral and misinformation sentence, as there was no reason that was separated (it's all part of the same context), as well as changed to past tense (November 2023 is in the past); he's no longer not the most viral user on Twitter. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Any Marxist can support Trump, all they need to do is decide they support Trump. Anyway, I changed first sentence based on MOS:FIRST, as supporting Maga Communism is not what he known for at all. His description of being a Maxrist-Lennist is self-attributed, so seems fine. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Also RS has described him as a conservative, so you're opinion what what Marxists/conservatives should or shouldn't be supporting isn't relevant here. Yes his politics appear incoherent, but this is not what RS states. Instead, he has been described as far-right, right-wing and conservative, while describing himself as a "Maga communist", Marxist–Leninist and an American patriot, as well documented in the body. Why his political descriptions applied by RS have been removed I have no idea. Now all that's left are his own self-descriptions, which looks like an WP:NPOV issue, as well as very unbalancing. Will return it now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

According to WP, lede is a summary of body. Instead, the lede currently reads like a hit piece. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed lead is the summary of the body, based on what is WP:DUE: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. If it sounds like a "hit piece" then you can blame WP:RS for that. Not much we can do about it either, as Hinkle has predominantly been covered in the context of going viral on Twitter for various forms of misinformation, so that's what's very much due here.
I'm not opposed to edits you've made, but I do wonder over the concept of the MOS:FIRST being the MOS:OPEN. My understanding is generally that the first sentence should be part of the opening paragrpagh, not be the opening paragraph. For example, if we were to remove Hinkle was born in San Clemente, California., which wouldn't be due based on opening paragraph style - establish the context in which the topic is being considered - then the second paragraph would merge well into the first sentence to create an opening paragraph, rather than just a first sentence; more or less as it was. So despite the useful attribution, I'm questioning whether your contributions have been an improvement. It seems like more of a workaround to avoid having an opening paragraph. Pinging some main contributors for comment on this one (>3% contribs): @Davide King @Solidarityandfreedom @Davest3r08 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really because if Wikipedia says Bellingcat should be attributed, and instead we have WP treating its claims as facts in WP voice in the very first opening paragraph of a BLP, then this certainly looks like a hit piece.
Of course it is important to note his place of birth, just like any biography lede's of other people.
The opening paragraph should be general and neutral per MOS. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032: Second paragraph always starts with place of birth for BLPs; please check Hitler, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu or any other article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Not in George Washington's article. Have you seen a policy or guideline? Llll5032 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032: Yes, as the lede is a summary of the body; the body of a BLP is the biography of a living person, and not the biography of a politician or a social media figure. They are persons before they are what they do. Information should be included to provide context on where they were born and where they were educated. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Kim Kardashian's BLP second paragraph does not start with a place of birth either. So, cite a policy? Llll5032 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032: My point is that the lede summarizes the body chronologically. Second paragraph should be third; and the third should be second. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is incorrect, there is no guideline about the lead being in chronological order. This is why I referenced MOS:OPEN as the first paragraph. The context in which Hinkle is known is not being born in California, nor his fringe political views and TV appearances, etc. These are not the reasons he became notable enough to have an article either, hence it does not establish the context in which the topic is being considered at all. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
My concern is less about his place of birth rather than giving controversies overwhelming prominencies in the very first paragraph after the first sentence and the opening paragraph, which contravenes these two guidelines:
MOS:LEDEBIO: The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing for biographies of living persons.
Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.
MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE states that first sentence must avoid subjective or contentious terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The key phrase here is WP:DUEWEIGHT: articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects., more relevantly, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement,...
I don't see the second paragraph as overwhelming in controversies, as it's within the context of his bans from social media, which is very much part of his "life and works". Not including this information would be whitewashing the reason for his deplatforming, that remains the prominent reason for his notability based on reliable sources, hence due. Historical perspective otherwise has nothing to do with chronological order, but instead contextualising history, so I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of this entirely.
As for the first sentece - Jackson Hinkle (born September 1999) is an American political commentator and social media influencer, who hosts the political show The Dive with Jackson Hinkle. - I don't see anything subjective or contentious, am I missing something?
In summary though, if you want to change the two paragraphs around based on your reasoning, I'm not opposed, I just don't see it as necessary of reflecting current due weight for the subject. More to the point, the lead should realistically be two paragraphs, not three, and having the MOS:FIRST as the MOS:OPEN is senseless. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, MOS:OPENPARABIO says, The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. If most WP:BESTSOURCES say he is most notable for misinformation, then it can be noted neutrally within the first few sentences. Most RS do not appear to say he is notable for being born in San Clemente. Llll5032 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

In order to review the attribution of Hinkle has a history of publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories according to Bellingcat, it appears not just be Bellingcat making these claims, so attribution not required but better sourcing is.

Hence, removing attribution and improving sourcing of claims. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP, all the cited sources are either unreliable (Daily Beast/Mediate/Daily Dot) or cannot be used as fact without attribution (Rolling Stones/Bellingcat). The Vice source doesn't directly support the claim made and is OR. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Daily Beast and Daily Dot are not unreliable, there is a lack of consensus over their reliability, which is completely different. Medialite has also been considered marginally reliable, so again there is no consensus that it is unreliable as you claim. This is the same for Vice, where most of the Maga Communism content comes from, so I'd be in favour of removing all that content as well if we are removing sources that are only MREL. No opposition from me here, in fact I encourage it, a lot more could come out as well based on this (see all the better source needed tags from not even marginally reliable sources). This could be a clean article based exclusively on sources with consensus over reliability, rather than a mixture of generally reliable and marginally reliable sources, or those that are neither.
As for attribution, the concept is very clearly when a single source is making a claim, not when there are multiple. Are you suggesting that the attribution should be "According to The Daily Beast, The Daily Dot, Medialite, Rolling Stone and Bellingcat"? This could be refined to "According to media outlets", even if we are only considering Bellingcat and Rolling Stone. None of this is necessary.
As for Vice source, it quite clearly states Together, they [Haz and Hinkle] decry the “vulgarization” of Marxism by Western liberals, traffic in the language of “deep-state” conspiracies. Are you suggesting that to "traffic in the language of “deep-state” conspiracies" isn't publishing or promoting conspiracy theories? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Saying "According to media outlets" is original research. If there is lack of consensus over their reliability, then they are not considered reliable so far, aka "may be usable depending on context". The context here is a BLP, which "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." High quality sources are required to make this extraordinary claim on a BLP. The Vice source doesn't support the explicit claim made about Hinkle in the article. Again, this is a BLP and we should not be liberal with our editing like this. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
So I've returned the Bellingcat attribution, as this disagreement is going nowhere, and it's not worth the argument. "Publishing misinformation and disinformation" is however questionable phrasing, as Guardian and Financial Times clearly state "spreading disinformation". Is it misleading to say he publishes it, if RS say spreading it? Does publishing imply the creation of such content, rather than the distribution of content? Maybe a more neutral term like disseminating would make sense here. "disseminating misinformation and disinformation" for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Spreading is fine with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Why don't we just say "spreading misinformation and disinformation", and relegate the "conspiracy theories, according to Bellingcat" to the body? It comes off as tacky to throw in a phrase like that and attribute it in the lede. The reason it has to be attributed is because only one RS says it. I have not seen anything like that in any other BLP.
I understand that Wikipedians want to ensure that our readers don't take Jackson Hinkle seriously. I don't think that should be the goal of an encyclopedia, let alone a BLP, but it is what it is. I think "spreading misinformation and disinformation" gets the point across sufficiently. Adding "and conspiracy theories, according to Bellingcat" just comes off as overkill, and borderline POV pushing. @Makeandtoss what do you think? Can we just put the "according to Bellingcat" bit in the body? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The lede should reflect the body; and there is a section in the body about alleged conspiracy theories. If the conspiracy theory bit is to be removed from lede, it should be done first from the body, and a critical analysis of whether the sources used are indeed RS or not; and if they are explicitly making this claim or not. Frankly I don't have the energy to do that for Hinkle's article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jackson_Hinkle/Archive_3"