Talk:James Allsup

White Nationalist

It is very clear that Allsup is a white nationalist

1: Attended the DC Free Speech rally and sided with Richard Spencer.

2: He did a podcast on altright.com alongside Richard Spencer where he made a multitude of antisemetic jokes.

3: He attended Charlotesville and was slated to speak. This is an event that was mostly just past around white nationalist circles, to simply claim he was going there to "cover it" is obviously a lie.

4: He invited neo-nazi Eli Mosley (real name as [Elliot Kline]) on his show where he a: spoke positively about white nationalist organization Identity Evropa. In addition, he spoke positively of the recent Charlotessville return rally only attended by white nationalists.

5: Grasps onto conspiracy theories to justify antisemitism pointed out in point 2.

6:Advocates obviously antisemetic conspiracy theory that Israel controls US foreign policy.

If one were to examine his following, it is very clear that he works directly with white nationalists and echos their sentiments exactly. Even if his initial description is not changed, I think the article as it is is quite bias and does not reflect him accurately.

His views directly align with white nationalist/supremacist ones. For example, he frequently talks about how black people are less intelligent than white people due to “genetic differences”.

Alright but please do not change "far-right" to "white nationalist" without getting a consensus here first. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

He also had a debate with internet personality Destiny over gun control where he explicitly said "glad you recognise the merits of white nationalism, Destiny". Stream date: 2/21/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.196.173 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Do you even listen to yourself? As a leftist you should be for free speech. Extremes on both sides hate free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.137.222 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Change "far-right" to "right-wing". Vorbing (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia uses content provided by reliable sources to describe individuals. Allsup is characterised repeatedly by sources as being "far-right", as opposed to being "right-wing". Stormy clouds (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Literally read his political compass video shows that he is indeed right, not far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HessHeinrich (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Self-reported, and therefore not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

edit request Thu 2 Aug 2018

hello: this article does not state that Allsup apparently graduated in 2017, per this Huffington Post article. plz upldate article with new info. as it currently reads, Allsup is still a student. oh yes here is template:

173.85.200.56 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) edited 00:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• thank you. :] 173.85.200.56 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Edit: James Allsup is not apart of the alt-right nor a "neo-nazi". Also stop using Huffington Post. It isn't a reliable news site. HighDJ7 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Information is sourced, and HuffPost has been determined to be a reliable news source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• If Allsup is not part of the alt-right or a neo-Nazi then why does he routinely parrot their talking points and associate with their members? For example:
  • He has denied the Holocaust in the past
  • He spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories
  • He attended the Unite the Right rally on the side of the far-right protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia on 11-12 August, 2017 and he was scheduled to speak at that rally
  • He hosts a podcast with someone who has said that race-mixing is "degenerate"
  • He has run up to avowed white supremacist and neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and thanked him personally. He's done a video interview with Spencer and has repeatedly retweeted him
  • He has called for "voluntary" racial segregation, as if anyone who isn't a massive racist would ever call for people to self-segregate
  • He is a member of Identity Evropa, a confirmed white supremacist and neo-Nazi group and the group that coined the "you will not replace us" chant made infamous in Charlottesville
  • He has proudly proclaimed that he is the first elected official to come on The Daily Shoah, a podcast connected to the white supremacist and neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer
  • He has displayed clear evidence of racism, he has stated that "poor whites commit less crime than middle class blacks." and that "the average white IQ is 105. The average African IQ is below 70."

James Allsup is a neo-Nazi and most certainly is a member of the alt-right, and as such is a racist, an antisemite, a Holocaust denier. Peadar Ó Croidheáin (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but what are you even talking about?? Can you quote a source for these accusations or just stringing words because they sound good together? 2607:FEA8:1D9F:F8EA:B87A:5C46:FFE3:C049 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You're not in the least "sorry", don't be disingenuous. If you bothered to read the article, you'd see that everything in it is sourced. Request denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Why resort to insults? And what "request" are you "denying"? Who the hell do you think you are 2607:FEA8:1D9F:F8EA:B15A:8D8C:E2D7:B970 (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
        • An edit was requested, it was denied, hence "Request denied". Hardly rocket science. Who do I think I am? I think I am a long-term Wikipedia editor looking out for the quality and value of Wikipedia articles, and not an anonymous IP editor with no history of contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the holocaust denial part 23 February 2019

On February 23rd, I have deleted the part stating: "In the past, Allsup has engaged in Holocaust denial, when during an episode of his Nationalist Review podcast, he made the comment, "It's been Syria where apparently Assad, 'he's gassing his own people. They're getting gassed, oh my God.' When, you know, that all turns out to be bullshit. You know, imagine that, somebody lying about people getting gassed."[44]. This segment is in violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research as the research has been made by the person who made the edit himself, who claims that he found an audio segment on a Kevin Logan video where James Allsup denies the holocaust. A review of the segment in question shows that James Allsup does not deny the holocaust in this YouTube video. Therefore the editor has done interpretative work which is not backed by the analysis of a secondary source. My removal of this section was undone by User:Ewen Douglas who failed to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and claimed that my editing must have been a bad faith one because I had not edited other articles in the past 7 years. I am back here to suggest deleting this unreliable claim and hear any argument to the contrary. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JF. Classifying that statement as Holocaust denial is a bad faith interpretation of what Allsup was actually saying. An honest analysis of the video would not assume any denial of the Holocaust took place. Nate Hooper (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not happy about editors suddenly appearing after long gaps to edit political articles. Sorry, but I doubt that that happens because it's been on their watchlist for years, it's usually a sign that they found out off-wiki. However, I agree that we shouldn't use this unless it's been reported in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"While a dispute is discussed, the article stays in the WP:STAUSQUO state" is the most recent edit by User:Beyond My Ken

Okay, well this is the discussion area, and even Doug (who appears to be Left leaning) "agrees that we shouldn't use this." So there seems to be a consensus against you from the talk page at the moment. Also, I'm not sure why we even need a discussion for something that is clearly a violation of editorial standards, but I'm willing to put all that aside and give you a day to make a counter argument before we change it back.

My reasoning is that the burden of proof is on those who wish to attribute motive. Furthermore, the claims that he denied the Holocaust are not found in the cited video, nor are they backed up by secondary sources. Thirdly, the claim that JF is "editing in bad faith since he hasn't edited another article in the past 7 years" will not work on me since I have edited many articles in recent times. So even if Ewen's characterization of him is true (which it isn't) an other argument / excuse will need to be found in my case, since I agree with his revision. Nate Hooper (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

...and even Doug (who appears to be left-leaning)... Oh, is that how we're doing it now? Are we all going to declare our political positions so that other editors can judge whether to keep our contributions or not based on our ideologies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, I was not dismissing other's arguments nor basing any of my arguments on that classification (because it is my subjective opinion of him). I was merely pointing out the fact that he appears to be Left leaning (and it's possible I may be wrong), which, if true, means that he has shown principle and accepted our arguments in spite of his opinions. If I am incorrect about him then that's fine; just consider it like an illustration - "The parable of the Wikipedia editor who accepted arguments on the basis of logic rather than ideology or mind-reading." That aside, do you have any arguments for James being a holocaust denier? Nate Hooper (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"James"?! Do you know Allsup? 'Cause it sure sounds like you do. If you have a conflict of interest in relation to Allsup, you need to make that clear. If you don't, please bear in mind that we are an encyclopedia, we don't refer to article subjects by their first names, either in our articles or in our discussions about the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nate Hooper, this edit should not have needed a discussion as it is a simple removal of a clear violation of editorial standards. Multiple users have been violating Wikipedia standards in order to maintain a completely defamatory sentence in a biography of a living person. I support the proposition of Nate to remove the sentence if we don't see any good arguments within a day. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't evaluate your opinion until I know what your ideology is -- are you "far-right", "right", "right-leaning", dead center, "left-leaning", "left" or "far-left". Once I know your position, I can judge whether your opinion is of any value or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ken, I was the one that made the assumption that Doug was Left wing, not JF. Please don't use your quarrel with me to dismiss things that JF is saying. Nate Hooper (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources are very weak for this particular detail... but on what grounds, exactly, is this being contested? The content should remain out of the article, because it is not supported by a reliable source. So with that said... he has appeared on a podcast called "the Daily Shoah" and shared memes positively comparing migrant children in cages to the Holocaust.[1] He is a member of Identity Evropa, an explicitly anti-Semitic group which likes to chant "Jews will not replace us". It's silly to look at the mountain of sources which link him to neo-Nazi ideology and white supremacism, and then start pearl-clutching over how Holocaust denial is technically unreliable. The heart of Holocaust denial is loudly asking ignorant questions while ignoring answers, and plausible deniability, and Allsup's actions, as supported by sources, align with these tactics. BLP and AGF do not mean we have to play stupid to this childish crap. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of the arguments after 24 hours, I hereby maintain my position and I ask User:Nate Hooper to redo my edit unless valid arguments have been made by the time I wake up 8 hours from now. An agreement was reached that the terms Holocaust Denial are unsupported for the segment cited. Nate Hooper agrees. Beyond My Ken thinks we should move forward with deletion if sources aren't found and sources were not found. He notes that political position should not matter in a determination of a violation of editorial standards, which I agree with and which is not in question here. Grayfell agrees in that he recognizes the weakness of the sources on the holocaust denial issue. He emphasizes on a subjective interpretation of the terms Holocaust denial, in which subjective considerations coming from his heart could weight the balance in favor of some other perspectives, but hopefully we can agree that the definition to be used is that of Wikipedia (especially when a link to the article is being given), a definition according to which "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." Holocaust denial. Lots of emotions have been expressed in this discussion by many parties, but the Wikipedia editorial standards must prevail. I'm asking Nate Hooper to complete the redo of my initial revision which was in-line with Wikipedia standards and is agreed upon unanimously based on this discussion. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jean-Francois Gariepy, If he fails to bring forward a valid argument against our points in 8 hours time, it shall be done, m'Lord! Nate Hooper (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed, this Nate Hooper account has also seen a flurry activity on this article, after long periods of inactivity. Normally this would not raise my eyebrows, but in the context of Doug Weller's observations in the section below, and my own points in the next section after that, I believe it justifies a closer look. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ewen, you can have as much time having a "closer look" look as you like, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have to alleviate any of your concerns about my credibility. But in the mean time, I'm removing the segment (see below)

• *Checks watch. It seems that no proof has been provided for Allsup being a holocaust denier in the time provided. Therefore, in my judgement, this discussion has been resolved in favour of JF and the segment's removal Nate Hooper (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Here's where the new editors are coming from: Jean-Francois Gariépy's YouTube video "The Wikipedia Problem"

Where he attacks a teenager for his edit earlier this month that's being discussed above.[2]. See WP:MEAT. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

At about 43 minutes in he asks moderators to make sure that no one uses the echo comment in a racist way - he notes that YouTube is cracking down on this sort of thing, although he laments the lack of free speech. Doesn't seem to be happening: "here are whole offices full of well paid (((people))) who "fight hate on the internet". What do you think those people actually do? Large part of this is editing Wikipedia. You can't fight these professional (((editors)))." (There's at least one more example). Doug Weller talk 11:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug, what does this have to do with the argument at hand? He is simply documenting the problems with the attitudes of some Wikipedia editors (not you of course) and bringing it to the attention of the public. Sure, there will always be one or two spergs in the comment section, but that shouldn't reflect poorly on him. Nate Hooper (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Two accounts: Excluzziver and Jean-Francois Gariépy

Here's my edit summary from my first reversion: "Excluzziver has made less than 50 edits in 8 years, has suddenly reappeared in the midst of this controversy after no edits since October 2018". Note, I was talking about the Excluzziver account.

Then, on this talk page, Jean-Francois Gariépy stated here, "My removal of this section was undone by User:Ewen Douglas who failed to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and claimed that my editing must have been a bad faith one because I had not edited other articles in the past 7 years." Again, note that this was written under the Jean-Francois Gariépy account.

It appears crystal-clear to me that this editor became confused about which account he was using when he descended upon this article. He made an edit with the Excluzziver account, and then, while logged in under the Jean-Francois Gariépy, complained that I had undone "his" edit. If that isn't a sockpuppet, I'll eat my hat. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: I'm afraid I don't read it that way. I think Jean-Francois was referring to [3] this edit, not Excluzziver's edit. However, ANI might be appropriate because although Exclussiver isn't a new account I suspect he came here because of the YouTube video I mention above. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah you are correct, on all counts. My mistake. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)