This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Joseph Watson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Paul Joseph Watson is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
While I don't subscribe to the subject's politics at all, this is clearly an attack piece. Starting paragraphs with headings such as 'He is anti-immigration' and 'He is anti-Islam' are not accurate descriptions of his views and not supported by citations. His may criticise aspects of immigration and aspects of political Islamism but to try to portray him as an out-and-out Islamophobic racist does not does anyone's cause any good and does not adhere to wikipedia guidelines. This page really needs to be deleted and started from scratch. Kont Dracula (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this wikipedia article, you won't learn what the Watson's views are, but there are paragraphs concerning the way he presents them ("childish manner") and what these views were associated with (nativism, far-right) by some journalists. The actual views section is devoted to ideologies or phenomenon PJW attacked and critized, however we learn nothing about 1. what was his reasoning behind criticism or 2. any parcticual views Watson actually holds and promotes. There also seems to be enough place for twitter posts, but none to things Watson did in media and politics. All of this creates some sort of an anti-article, full of opinion bias ("Watson and other people considered to be extremists") which defines the person by what his opponents say about him. It's structured as some sort of a slander platform and should be balanced with information about Watson's actions and ideas. 89.29.16.158 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The grossly unprofessional tone and aggressive value-driven characterizations in this article really expose the problem of bias in Wikipedia.
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
From the lede, please remove:
He describes his channel as “Culture, controversy, contrarianism” and often lampoons celebrities and politicians.
This is (a) unsourced and (b) tendentious. The article clearly establishes that Watson is a fabulist with strong ties to racism and other bigotry, so quoting his self-image gives undue weight to a fringe agenda.
I suppose if there is a reliable independent secondary source that discusses this self-characterisation and puts it in context then it could go in the body, but I do not think it should be in the lede at all, he is far too controversial to be allowed to paint his own self-portrait in this way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. It is acceptable to note that a source says something about themselves—compare the lede at David Icke, a good article—and at first glance I don't think it is unduly weighted vs. the description of him as alt-right. Regardless, please allow it to be discussed first. —Nizolan(talk · c.)14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell and Beyond My Ken:—and others watching this page—what do you think of the above? After reviewing the article as a whole, and noticing that the references are IMDB and Watson's Youtube channel, which I didn't see at first glance, I'm more inclined to reverse my initial judgement and agree with the IP. —Nizolan(talk · c.)20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't fight to include the paragraph, but I could go either way. The IMDb listing is especially silly, since it appears that someone attempted to create individual entries for every 5-minute vlog he's ever posted. That's pretty funny, but it's not a good source per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We can defer to self-descriptions when they are uncontroversial, but not even Watson's best friends would argue that is the case here. After all, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon claims he's a journalist. 82.1.159.160 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Although as late as July 2016 he called himself alt-right…" — content is not verifiable
"Although as late as July 2016 he called himself alt-right, he no longer accepts that label and considers himself part of the 'New Right.'[10]"
That particular line is hearsay. While the Los Angeles Times did publish it, they have used Twitter as the primary source for that reporting. When following the hyperlinks they have provided for that quote, the user is informed that the page does not exist. They do reference another Twitter post which reads as follows —
"Paul Joseph Watson
Verified account @PrisonPlanet
16 Nov 2016
VICE is asking all "alt-right" people to be in their hit piece. I will only do mainstream media if it's live. Not playing your game anymore.
87 replies 937 retweets 2,770 likes"
It continues on with the following entry on Twitter —
"Paul Joseph Watson
Verified account @PrisonPlanet
Plus I am not even "alt-right". I make YouTube videos. I don't care about my face being on TV just so they can edit me out of context."
That leaves me to believe that he has never accepted the label, and there is not a single instance of the term "New Right" occuring in the article published by the Los Angeles Times. The Tweet may very well have been deleted by himself, or another entity. Unfortunately I cannot verify that it has ever existed because even when using wonderful archiveing tools such as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, there is nothing for the reader to use for reference.
With this being brought to attention here, I am proposing that the necessary changes be made to reflect verifiable information only, per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Loafahbred (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong for multiple reasons. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and the LA Times is a reliable source. That source does, specifically, quote Watson regarding the term "New Right":
“One is more accurately described as the New Right. These people like to wear MAGA [Make America Great Again] hats, create memes & have fun,” Watson wrote on Facebook, criticizing mainstream media for focusing on Trump’s racist supporters. “They include whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and everyone else. These are the people who helped Trump win the election.
As for the deleted tweet, for your convenience, here is an archive of it. This makes no difference to the article, however. It would be ridiculous for us to expect every single reliable source to provide publicly available archives of every primary source it cites. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: I think he really believes this. It's rather sad. Sure, Milo is one of them - in a "my African-American" sense - but every time they gather you get a sea of pasty white male faces. It's also worth noting that in England he is virtually unheard of (as is Gorka). Guy (help!) 07:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I were only using the sources made available to me, yes I would believe that. Is there something so wrong for me to apply a neutral point of view when reading articles on Wikipedia? One would assume it is written in such a manner, so the same applied to reading it. I also do not think it is at all ridiculous to expect primary sources remain in tact. The problem here is that The L.A. Times themselves used a source that Wikipedia policy advises strongly against. It was published in their national news section, but to refer back to the neutral point of view, Wikipedia edits weren't done in such a way. Even after the quote you've provided we gain even more context — “The other faction likes to fester in dark corners of sub-reddits” — a reference to branches of the social-media site Reddit — “and obsess about Jews, racial superiority and Adolf Hitler. This is a tiny fringe minority. They had no impact on the election.” While I don't see the need to include all of that by Wikipedia, it also begs the question I'm attempting to address here. Is this line being included in the introduction to this article present the Wikipedia edit from neutral point of view? If we cannot do that, and if our source is "a friend said they heard them say it" but the friend cannot provide the proof of them saying it, then it should clearly be omitted until it can be. At the absolute very least, it warrants a [failed verification] tag if it's to remain as is. Loafahbred (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Malerooster can you explain your edit summary "if you drill down, it is already included” because its meaning isn't readily apparent (especially after pursuing Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment and Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom). Obviously I’m missing something here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on Opposition to Islam by country (parent category of Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom), Anti-Muslim sentiment is a parent category of that. I really don't care either way. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The label is FAR RIGHT without ANY attempt to define what that is. If one criticises radical islam for killing people that is now FAR RIGHT. If one asks how many people have been killed by Christians screaming "Jesus Christ is great" in the last 10 years - that is FAR RIGHT. According to this page any criticism of Islam no matter how well reasoned - is FAR RIGHT. If one criticises ANY 'Climate Change' rubbish using straight science then one is labeled FAR RIGHT. Justifying this extremist criticism of Watson by saying Facebook and Twitter banned him IS like joining in the great 'book burning' Labeling someone FAR RIGHT is calling them a NAZI. The label is deliberate in an attempt to crush any opposition whatsoever to any Leftist agenda - that is sooooo on display on this page. Baloneybill (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 