Jump to content

Talk:Jack Posobiec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eegorr (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 30 October 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A very non-neutral article

I’ve read this mans Wikipedia article after listening to an interview of him and I’ve also read the discussion pages here. “Considered an internet troll”? That’s a subjective position and is very much out of place in a biography. What has his career at “One America News Network” entailed? What did his work at the ONI involve? How did he return to the ONI as a civilian? What are his religious beliefs?What are his political beliefs beyond the word “republican” and the disproportionately long list of bullet points of provocative statements (which is the majority of the actual article)? It damages the credibility of Wikipedia and undermines the entire article because it’s immediately apparent that this has been written and edited to portray this individual in a negative light. Waqeem (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can only convey what's been published by reliable sources. If you find reliable sources that provide the information you're seeking, then by all means, post them here. Please refer to that link to help distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. R2 (bleep) 20:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t alter the fact that the article is quite biased against this person. I personally find his views objectionable but I see this trend in many Wikipedia articles. The apparent extension of the activist sphere into Wikipedia. What’s contained within this article may be true, but it may not be true because it appears to have been selectively edited. 75% of the article is essentially a condemnation of his personality and the article is blocked from edits. Waqeem (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fact that the article is protected from editing, there is a process in place for users to request edits to pages they can't edit directly. However you do need to provide sources and specific changes you're hoping to see implemented, rather than sweeping comments about the entire page being biased. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page is biased. duh Warst04 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Warst04: See my comment directly above. Feel free to also suggest specific changes, or even a new draft version of the article for discussion if you like, but vague statements like this are not actionable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree this whole article i biased, but I would like to suggest we clean up the lead paragraph in particular. This reads like a hit piece and seems to be infringing on a lot of WP:BLP issues. Yes there are WP:RS but the part about being an Internet Troll? I will be removing that promptly. WP:NOTABLOG Lets try to keep the page within Wiki standards. I'd be up for re-drafting although I know that would take quite some discussion and dedication. Lets just start with the lead paragraph first. Lets get that to a good spot first. -EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That you disagree with cited reliable sources is irrelevant. The sources describe him as an "Internet troll," and therefore so do we. If you remove reliably-sourced material without consensus, expect to be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of reliably-sourced material - there are multiple reliable non-opinion sources cited which describe Posobiec as an "Internet troll." That you don't like that description is irrelevant - your problem is with the sources, and we can't fix that. The same is true for the other material you removed from the article's lede - Posobiec's promotion of Pizzagate is perhaps the most famous thing about him, and certainly merits placement in the lede - at least as much as his work for a far-right TV channel. Please review the bold, revert, discuss cycle - your BOLD edits have been reverted, and now it's incumbent on you to discuss and gain consensus for your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is far and away the most biased left-wing hit piece I have found on Wikipedia. I came here knowing nothing about this person, but having long understood that Wikipedia leans left. Now it appears that Wikipedia has lurched left in an event of seismic proportions. Hiding behind supposedly "reliable sources" cannot justify this article's blatant hate. Wikipedia should take down this "article" immediately to preserve some semblance of allegiance to its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.198.48 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 (she/her • talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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[reply]

This page is not even salvageable. I suggest the entire page be deleted and we start over. Eegorr (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacy

None of the articles used to mention Jack Posobiec is a white supremacist or antisemite actually say that, if you control f jack posobiec in any of the articles one of them refers to him as "alt-right" and another one says he has tweeted out white supremacist symbols such as "1488" in the past. But if you look through his twitter the actual context is really important as when he was mentioned 1488 he was actually mentioning a black nationalist group and comparing the similarities to white nationalism. It does seem that Jack Posobiec has many connections with white supremacists such as Richard Spencer so we can definitely include that, but I don't think theres sufficient evidence to conclude he is a white supremacist or anstisemite himself, also its mentioned multiple times in this wikipedia that he repeated the white genocide conspiracy theory but when you look at the citations for those articles neither one of them even say that he mentioned a white genocide conspiracy theory ever, so it seems like this is completely fabricated unless someone has a real source for that. 73.70.228.14 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Anish631[reply]

This article doesn't say that Posobeic is a white supremacist or antisemite, it says that he has "us[ed] white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points", which as you have said, the sources support. As for the white genocide cites, that statement is cited in the "Political activities" section. But if you look through his twitter this is original research -- we have to go by what reliable sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say he has used white supremacist or antiemetic talking points in any of the articles and also to imply someone is using those talking points is to imply that they actually believe in those talking points and are therefore white supremacists or antisemites. The white genocide conspiracy theory or any other "white supremacist" talking points and conspiracy theories he has supposedly brought up aren't in any of the articles cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.228.14 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Posobiec has tweeted about 'white genocide,' a white nationalist conspiracy theory and recruitment tool that claims governments are trying to cull white people into extinction through policies of mass immigration, integration, racial diversity and abortion." Cite 10
  • "Posobiec, who once openly backed the anti-Semitic elements of the alt-right movement on Twitter but has since—along with a number of other pro-Trump personalities—tried to distance himself from it, is verified on the site, where he maintains an active account." Cite 11
  • "Jack Posobiec, a man who has repeatedly shared the '1488' numerical code for white supremacy" Cite 12
  • "Jack Posobiec, the Trumpist conspiracist who once tweeted the white supremacist code '1488'" Cite 13
  • "Posobiec targeted Jewish journalists with antisemitic hate, as Hatewatch detailed in a story about his links to the white supremacist movement... Hatewatch detailed in part one of this series that in 2016, Posobiec marked CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, a group of journalists at a Peter Thiel press conference, and the showrunners for HBO's 'Game of Thrones' with the antisemitic 'echoes' meme, which was popularized by white supremacists." (etc. -- this article goes into more detail and I won't quote it all here) Cite 35
Cite 35 also references this article, which I've added to the list of citations in our article since it is best to be explicit. Again, too much to quote here.
GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the standard here is that the person must explicitly endorse nazism in an article in order to be labeled as such? Author above provided several references to these nazi dog whistles, statements that would not make sense under any other conditions --80.213.65.101 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is that reliable sources must widely use a label for a person before we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entry doesn't fully clarify the 1488 meme, and in fact plays it down somewhat. The 14 is from the Fourteen Words, but the 88 refers to HH = Heil Hitler. So it is inaccurate to say "*1488, or the Fourteen Words*," as they are *not the same thing*. Posobiec has associated with far right extremists such as Richard Spencer, and objected to the presence of Jews in his vicinity, using the triple parentheses to ID Jews, so it is not unfair to describe his repeated use of 1488 as indicative of Nazi sympathies. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.64.227 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The man is not an alt-right

The reason why I am saying this is because Candace Owens retweets him almost on a daily basis. If he was alt right then he is a white supremacist and would condemn Owens. 2600:1012:B0E9:9338:AC57:945E:8BA5:D3E1 (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) That's not how it works, (b) her own views are absolutely in line (see Candace_Owens#Political_views). (c) not everyone who is alt-right is a white supremacist. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you make an excellent point, but the way this article is worded can you blame anybody who reads it to think anything else? This article has MASSIVE bias, terrible WP:NPOV, WP:DUE specifically in the lead paragraph and seems to be just a WP:COATRACK list of controversies. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the first comment, he also had a podcast episode with zuby, who is black, had he really been "alt right" he would've almost certainly turned down the offer, also, I've checked through his tweets and I'd definetly say he is a normal conservative. Siradstonks (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not individual editors' opinions and interpretations of his actions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are many authors. Please read the thread immediately above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish folk would learn how to conjugate the word "bias".--Jorm (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Opinions such as “internet troll” and “promoter of fake news” should be omitted from these pages because it only discredits the information. I searched this to get facts, not opinions, about this individual. 2603:8080:4903:5000:40A:4346:3F71:9F49 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic impartial tone that grossly breaches BLP protections

Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll” is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediately. This is an issue on his page and on the Human Events page. As indicated below, several sources have been cited, implying this to be true; but none of these are sufficient to qualify under Wikipedia policies, specifically:

This started on the Human Events article which contained a snippet that outlined the hiring of Jack Posobiec which labeled him as a “conspiracy theorist”. Since this adjective was not used in any of the cited WP:RS; I corrected it to a more appropriate label, “conservative commentator”, a title I have seen used to describe Posobiec in numerous articles. This was quickly reverted and changed back to “conspiracy theorist” with two citations (listed below) added to validate the “conspiracy theorist” label.

1)This Daily Beast article, which fails WP:RELIABILITY on WP:RSP

2)This NYT article, which only calls him a conspiracy theorist in the WP:RSHEADLINES – in the article it calls him a “Pro Trump Activist” who is “notorious for his amateur sleuthing into red herrings like the “Pizzagate” hoax and a conspiracy theory involving the murder of a Democratic aide”. To justify the conspiracy theorist label on Human Events’ page would actually breach WP:SYNTH and be WP:OR. After pointing out these articles breach WP:REDFLAG; I was told that the actual Jack Posobiec article was “heavily sourced” with articles labeling him a “conspiracy theorist”, and to try highlighting the issues on this article’s talk page.

The consensus on this talk page has been that the Posobiec article is poorly written and violates WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE. This is responded to with the assurance that all the citations come from WP:RS and a WP:NPOV. This appears to be the case at first glance, but they ultimately fail WP:BLP protections in other crucial areas upon closer examination. The lead contains “Conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll”; which needs to be removed promptly. Following are the 4 sources cited after “conspiracy theorist” and why they fail Wikipedia standards:

1) NY TIMES A Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story - This article (mentioned earlier) is WP:RSHEADLINES.

2) LA TIMES Trump retweets alt-right media figure who pushed 'PizzaGate' and Seth Rich conspiracy theories –Same as above WP:RSHEADLINES

3) Business Insider Trump retweets alt-right conspiracy theorist amid Charlottesville fallout—This one does call him a conspiracy theorist in the body of the article, but Business Insider is flagged under WP:RSP with no consensus for its reliability, which means we need other corroborating articles to attribute to meet the high standards for WP:BLP.

4) NY TIMES Alternative Narrative Emerges in Conservative Media as Russia Inquiry Widens—The article states that he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist.

Citations for Internet Troll listed below.

1) Playboy Election Night from the Trump Hotel—This is an OpEd, WP:NOTOPINION

2) Philadelphia How Jack Posobiec Became the King of Fake News— This is an OpEd

3) Chicago Sun Times After blasting racism, Trump retweets alt-right post on Chicago crime—No consensus on Chicago Sun Times, but needs more actual WP:RS to corroborate, not OpEds.

4) Vanity Fair “Nonsensical,” “Kooky,” “Idiotic”: The Far Right Seethes Over Trump’s Second Amendment Flip-Flop—This article is an OpEd.

This is extremely problematic. Seems that the original creator of the article user DrFleischman added “Conspiracy theorist” very early on, and only added one WP:RS, the NYT article that breaches WP:RSHEADLINES. It never should have been kept on a living persons lead sentence. I can see that as time passed on, more and more articles were wrongfully (but in good faith) attributed to Internet Troll and Conspiracy theorist. To be clear and review the importance of WP:REDFLAG: 

“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”

this article, simply just doesn’t provide enough. We can attribute these opinions into the body of the article; but as opinions, not as fact. Definitely not as fact in the lead sentence. There aren’t enough “multiple high-quality sources” that label Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” or “Internet Troll”, when you disqualify the headlines and OpEds. There have been numerous editors that have commented that the WP:TONE of the Posobiec article is biased & WP:IMPARTIAL – can we reach a consensus to finally remove “Conspiracy Theorist” and “Internet Troll” to better fit an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC tone. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaximusEditor, if you believe Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist”...is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediately then that would also apply to other BLPs I've seen that call the subject a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of their leads. I might agree with you if such a characterization is made without multiple sources, but in Posobiec's case multiple sources are provided. I see people characterized as an "internet troll" less often, so I won't address that here, but "conspiracy theorist" appears common, when properly sourced. So this isn't a matter that should be addressed specifically about Posobiec, but rather as a broad policy matter, and this isn't the place to do that. Anyway, I'm adding other sources for "conspiracy theorist" that should address the concerns you expressed here, though I find your argument that "he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist" to be dubious. soibangla (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Posobiec&oldid=1052761133"