Talk:Jack Posobiec

"Alt right"

Is there any evidence that this person has "alt right" views? The alt right is about establishing racially pure ethnostates, but all the sources seem to confirm that this person is pro-Trump, and Trump is certainly not alt right. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of reliable sources that describe Posobiec as alt-right, the most reliable probably being this one from CJR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That source just uses the term "alt-right" in passing. Is that really enough to determine someone's political ideology, when they haven't self-identified with any particular ideology? Ignoring the secondary sources for a moment, is there any evidence that this guy has expressed white nationalist views? Has he suggested creating an ethnically-pure state? I think it's reasonable to disregard sources that are just blatant opinion pieces in some situations. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right is a loaded term. Clicking through to the definition of "alt right", one sees that they are conservatives who are "white nationalists". Clicking through to "white nationalists, you see they are people who "seek to develop a white national identity" who take ideas from Nazism. While Posobiec might identify himself as alt-right, I'm certain his definition of "alt right" is not the Nazi definition offered by Wikipedia. Unless you're able to source quotes Posobiec has made that are racist or espouse white nationalism -- it is a highly libelous claim. Not much different than Hillary Clinton calling half of Trump supporters "xenophobic misogynist racist", her opinion doesn't make it true and linking to an article where she says this does not prove it to be a true claim. I'm not quite sure the best fix of this, but calling Posobiec a Nazi is libelous and outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.148.89.151 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see our verifiability policy. I'm not aware that Posobiec calls himself alt-right. But several reliable sources do. These are independent sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The link you provided already, the cjr.org one, groups Cernovich with Posobiec, as being both alt-right and a white nationalist. Cernovich says he is not https://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/31/is-mike-cernovich-part-of-the-alt-right/ where he states "First I’m not a white nationalist." and also "I’m even not part of the alt-right." That is what you considered to be the most-reliable, and yet it is disputed by the subject of the article. cjr.org is not considered neutral, as it pushes a liberal agenda against conservatives, where articles like this https://www.cjr.org/opinion/alternative_facts_trump_spicer_conway.php clearly outline their bias. "whoppers, untruths, lies—but casual falsehoods have been the hallmark of President Donald Trump’s young political career". Is that what you claim to be an "independent" source? Clearly it is not. The accuracy of your link is disputed. As stated above on this page, it is contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced from a biased publication, the subjects of whom (Cernovich) disagree with the classification -- and its hard to see how being called a Nazi (per wikipedia's own definition) isn't libelous. All this without a single sourced racist quote or opinions of Posobeic which would prove him to be a white supremacist, as this article is making him out to be. I'm not the only person concerned with this per AliceIngvild94 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.148.89.151 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CJR is just about the most reliable current events source that exists. Sources need not be unbiased to be reliable. In addition, the CJR article you're referring to is marked as an opinion source by David Uberti, i.e. it doesn't reflect CJR's position on anything. And no one is proposing called Posobiec a Nazi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CJR may be reliable overall, but I'd ask you to consider that this particular article is not reliable. It includes the claim that white nationalist Richard Spencer is a "Trump Advisor," which is false. To incorrectly claim a self-avowed neo-Nazi and the person most identified with the term "alt-right" is a Trump advisor demonstrates a deep lack of understanding of the facts regarding the alt-right. I would request thus that this source and its accompanying claim in the entry be removed. 50.235.46.218 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That is exceedingly weird, thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it impugns significantly on the reliability of the source for the purpose it is being used (to say that Posobiec is alt-right), but I'd be interesting in hearing other contributors' comments on this particular issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that he identifies as 'alt-right', and he has made numerous statements to the contrary. The source currently being used on this is highly unreliable and claims Richard Spencer is an advisor of Donald Trump.Avaya1 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... should I keep going? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Posobiec has stated that he is "alt-lite", not "alt-right". The two movements do not get along with each other, from what I understand. If I understand correctly, if someone declares themselves not to a certain label, then that is incorporated into their article according to the BLP policy. Volunteer Marek, do you have any negative feelings or bias against this topic? I'm AGF, but your comments seem a little contrary NPOV and BLP. 152.130.15.30 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you or someone else please provide a link for the proposition that Posobiec says he is not alt-right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and borderline libelous editorializing on the part of Wikipedia. Using secondary sources to describe a person's ideology or beliefs when they themselves have stated they do not have such beliefs is beyond indefensible, particularly adding that to the first line of the article. For example, CNN has said that Donald Trump is racist. Should Donald Trump's Wikipedia article begin by saying "Donald Trump is a racist who is the President of the United States?" Dr. Fleischman, you are exploiting a blind spot in the media in order to propagate disinformation. This is shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.231.131 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't stop you from feeling offended, but under our verifiability policy, we rely primarily on reliable independent secondary sources. If you have an issue with that, then I suggest you take it up at WT:V or WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Tried to make a few edits on the portion that incorrectly describes Posobiec as "alt-right" and it got reverted. Looking at the sources listed to justify calling him "alt-right" they amount to almost nothing and I have a hard time grasping how calling someone something as derogatory and defamatory as "alt-right" can be done when the claim is poorly cited, sourced and substantiated. I’ve seen that people tried to fix this and it just wasn’t happening so I’m going to go in-depth here and I'm going to go through all 3 sources, showing how short they fall of showing anything at all, and hopefully I can get some clarity.

The first source is found here uses two sentences from a CNN article by Chris Cillizza published August 18, 2017 where he calls Posobiec "a card-carrying member of the alt-right" without ever defining the "alt-right" or saying how he earned that card. There is no way to know what his definition of "alt-right" is or what he considers "alt-right." There is literally nothing in the article that provides any context or clarity of what Cillizza means when he says "alt-right." He provides no explanation of what Posobiec has done to become "a card-carrying member of the alt-right" or how he knows any of this information. It is very clearly his opinion, and a biased one at that. Cillizza makes it very clear he does not support President Trump so citing one of his articles as a legit source for justifying an insult of a Trump supporter seems improper. Wikipedia's definition for "alt right" is "a grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, and other far-right fringe hate groups” Nowhere in that article does Cillizza claim or even come close to hinting that Posobiec is ANY of those things. Cillizza's only claim that he elaborates on is that Posobiec is a Trump supporter and that Posobiec is a believer of a well-defined and well-known conspiracy theory, which would make him a conspiracy theorist, not "alt-right." Summary of 1st source article: Two sentences where the author accuses Posobiec of being "a card-carrying member of the alt-right" without ever defining what the "alt-right" is or what Posobiec has done to become a "card carrying member." Alt-right is in one sentence with no definition, context, or reasons justifying calling him that.

The second source for "alt-right" is an ABC story from August 15th, 2017 found here Here, like the CNN article Posobiec is referenced as someone the President retweeted. While the headline of the story says, "Trump retweets alt-right activist who pushed 'Pizzagate' conspiracy," the ACTUAL article refers to Posobiec as a " a right-wing activist" and a "well-known right-wing voice." The article itself never once says Posobiec is "alt-right" in fact, the article makes no mention of the "alt-right" at all. So this "source" is literally taken from just the headline and, according to Professor Ross Collins of North Dakota State, "those who write stories, the reporters, almost never write their own headlines" and he describes the function of headlines as “the same function in mass media writing as a lead, to call attention to the story, to snare people in." and also says "What's more, headlines are too often inaccurate, or biased. When a story is inaccurate, the reporter gets blamed, and takes the complaints. As he should. When a headline is inaccurate, most people assume the reporter wrote it (when they didn’t)" So the second source, the ABC article, used to justify the "alt-right" label comes from a headline, not written by the author, about an article that makes ZERO mention of "alt-right" anywhere in the article. If I had to guess I would say that, given what had just happened in Charlottesville, adding "alt-right" to the headline was, as Professor Collins would say “to call attention to the story, to snare people in" because it is never mentioned a single time in the article. Summary of 2nd source article: Not one word of the story says anything about "alt-right," the phrase is never used at all, let alone to describe Posobiec, who is instead describe as a "right wing activist." The headline, not written by the author, used a technique that headline writers use as described by my source to "snare people in" with the phrase "alt-right."

The third and final source is a Megyn Kelly article found here that was written two months before the other two articles that are cited for "alt-right." The first use of “alt-right” is to describe Mike Cernovich who may very well have been "alt-right" when this article was written, however two months later, the same day that the earlier cited ABC article was published, author Tim Hanes posted a story on RealClear Politics about Cernovich titled "I Was Wrong About The Alt-Right" In the article Cernovich describes what he thought the "alt-right" was by saying he thought it was "An alternative to the mainstream right. It was only later that the ‘Nazi boys’ took over the movement," he goes on to say "My view of the alt-right was that it was a big tent. [I thought it] was an edgier, aggressive, unapologetic version of the [mainstream] right." This part is important because it helps explain how people like Cernovich and Posobiec got lumped in with the "alt-right." Cernovich describes the Republicans like Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry as "dorks who don't even go to the gym or take care of themselves." so he said he and a few others looked at that and thought "Oh, 'Alt-Right,' that is an alternative to this. That makes sense, we need an alternative to the right." He says that when they began saying "alt-right" that "None of these Nazi boys' said 'no, actually, you're not alt-right. The alt-right is about being a Nazi, Nazi salutes, letting people fly Nazi flags at your events, 100% white nationalism." Cernovich said that the actual "alt-right" which is the Nazi's, were "such a fringe marginal thing" that they were more than happy to not tell them about the "Nazi-flag kind of stuff." Cernovich stopped calling himself that "now [that] I know the alt-right is really about Nazi flags at their protests, about Nazis salutes at tailgates." Cernovich then expands on how the "alt-right" works to undermine Trump. So right there we have someone who distanced himself from the "alt-right" because he didn't know it was Nazis and this is TWO MONTHS after the Megyn Kelly article. All of that is important because the Kelly's use of "alt-right" to describe Posobiec is largely based on his association with Cernovich who, at that time, had no idea about any of the Nazi stuff. It's also important to note that the Cernovich says that the "alt-right" is working AGAINST Trump, but Posobiec is incredibly pro-Trump, so there's even more reason to question calling him "alt-right." Back to the Megyn Kelly article. She does at least attempt to define what the "alt-right" is, unlike the other two sources, but her definition is nothing like Wikipedia's which I mentioned above. First she incorrectly states that "white nationalist. Richard Spencer" is a "Trump adviser" which has never been corrected and should immediately disqualify this as a source right away, but I'll continue on anyway. "Alt-right" is described by Kelly as "garden-variety racism mixed with economic isolationism and a heavy dose of misogyny." Now does “garden-variety racism “sound anything like what Cernovich said it was two months later? Does that sound anything like what Wikipedia says it is now? There are no Nazis in “garden-variety racism,” there is no mention of fascists, there is NOTHING that is associated with "alt-right" as we understand it now. Kelly's description of "garden-variety racism" and "heavy dose of misogyny" can both be attributed to the little-known white nationalist Richard Spence (who would go on to become the leader of the “alt-right) who she incorrectly said was a Trump adviser. Kelly goes on to write about the "far right" conspiracy theories and online presence, never clarifying which sections of the "far right" she was speaking about or setting a standard for what qualified as "far right." Finally, we get to the ONE SENTENCE of this 1400-word article that Posobiec is named in. Talking about the conspiracy theory around the murder of Seth Rich, she writes "Alt-right influencers like Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, and Paul Joseph Watson latched onto the story, as did Breitbart and Drudge Report. Eventually Sean Hannity began promoting it relentlessly on Fox News. By the end of the week, even politicians like Newt Gingrich were lending support to the claims (which shows that this conspiracy wasn't just a bunch of fringe crazy people)." She calls them "alt-right influencers" not even "members of the alt-right" just influencers. As I explained earlier, Cernovich knew nothing of the Nazi stuff in the "alt-right" and immediately left it when he found out, Paul Joseph Watson works for Alex Jones and Infowars so he’s certainly a bit “out there” and definitely a conspiracy theorist, but conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean “alt-right” and he has never been associated with Nazis. Posobiec 's only link to the other two names and the misnaming of "alt-right" is that he and Cernovich both pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theories, and that's it. Posobiec has never said or done anything relating to Nazis (other than disavowing them and removing them from the ‘deploraball’) and when Megyn Kelly's article (with bad information on Richard Spencer) was written, there was no mention of the "Nazi" part because no one knew about that yet. She writes about the "alt-right" being internet trolls and conspiracy theorists. The only time Nazi's even come up is when they quote Milo Yiannopoulos saying, "the alt-right (meaning internet trolls, not the actual Nazis) uses Nazi imagery to annoy older people and provoke emotional reactions, in much the same way 1980s metal bands festooned album covers with satanic symbols." Those bands weren’t actual Satanists, it was just “edgy.” Now seeking a response like that is not exactly a nice or a good thing to do, but it certainly isn’t an “alt-right” or Nazi thing to do. Yiannopoulos is both Gay and Jewish so obviously he would not be associating with those types of people (Posobiec, Cernovich, Watson) if they were an actual group of Nazis. So, at this point, it doesn't seem like anyone in the mainstream really defined the overall "alt-right" as Nazis because no one knew about that yet. So, saying Posobiec and Cernovich are "alt-right 'influencers' (not even members)" doesn’t mean what it would now because people in the “alt-right” were still being described as "online trolls" not as Nazis. Once the Nazi part became clear, people like Cernovich and Posobiec disavowed and left. Summary of 3rd source article: Kelly has a very different definition of "alt-right" than Wikipedia and Cillizza (which I’m assuming because he never actually defines it) and this was before "Nazi" became synonymous with “alt-right.” She mentions Posobiec in ONE sentence as an "influencer" of internet trolls.

So, over the three sources you have one story that never even mentions the "alt-right" anywhere in the article and then a total of 3 sentences that call Posobiec "a card-carrying member of the alt-right" and an "alt-right influencer." The first claim is done without the author of the CNN article defining what he considered to be "alt-right," he does not give any examples of anything Posobiec has ever said or done that aligns with the "alt-right," ignores the fact that by this time, Richard Spencer made it very clear that Posobiec is not with the "alt-right" has more than enough to warrant removing "alt-right" from Posobiec’s page. It details how people like Posobiec were accidentally classified as “alt-right” when Hillary Clinton cast them all in the same net in a speech where she described the beliefs of the "alt-right" using words like "racist, sexist etc." but then applied those to the people that are part of the "new-right" by mistake. Using the phrase "alt-right" which can also mean Nazis, she incorrectly described the “New Right” and cultural libertarian figure heads, like Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones & the internet troll culture surrounding Donald Trump, which have nothing to do with the “alt-right.” So, some commentators mistakenly lumped in the "new right" with the "alt-right" which neither side was happy about. The source I just provided above does more than enough to show how ridiculous this "alt-right" claim is, but I went in-depth because I wanted to point out that these sources that were defended on here and used to justify calling someone something as awful as "alt-right." and having that show up on every google search were so insanely insufficient to proving anything at all. Only two sources even said anything about the "alt-right" and neither one of them offered even ONE SINGLE THING that Posobiec has ever done that is in anyway associated with the "alt-right." Posobiec has made it clear that he is not a part of that group here here here here explains the "new-right" and how it is NOT IN ANY WAY the "alt-right" here you can find more on the "new-right" here

And then the last thing that should end this "alt-right" insult on that is inexplicably still on his page is the fact that President Trump disavowed "alt-right supporters" Posobiec is frequently called a huge Trump supporter, and I find it hard to believe that someone would support someone so fervently if that person had disavowed them. "Alt-right" needs to be removed from his page immediately. As I have shown, calling him that is uninformed, unsubstantiated by any source, and 100% provably false. To leave it up would be wrong and would be knowingly allowing false information to stay up on the site. Davemband 3232 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Davemband_3232

References

I'm glad someone did the legwork to finally put this matter to rest. Your logic also applies to Mike Cernovich who still has a similar problem of being described as "alt-right" in his lead. I wonder if you could address that matter too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.231.131 (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stepping into libelous area. The site should refrain from labeling someone alt right. Unlock this article and take it down. Glenlivet81 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say, and plenty say he's alt-right. See the latest discussion at the bottom of this page. R2 (bleep) 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Remove and replace term "alt-right" as politically biased and either incorrect or poorly defined and does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - better to use "conservative" or "right wing" Remove and replace term "internet troll" as politically biased and either incorrect or poorly defined and again does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - use a term that fit such as "political commentator" Remove term "conspiracy theorist" as biased and again does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - again see "political commentator" Remove term "fake news" as biased and perhaps inaccurate in light of current events involving the restructuring of the main stream media Remove "debunked...high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring" as biased and perhaps inaccurate in light of current events involving Epstein Alb-davidt (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability, and each of these is supported by reliable, secondary sources (more than one, in most cases) and thus are verifiable. Removal of any of these from the article would require the existence of a clear consensus prior to implementation. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

Your Current Listing is politically biased. You should change your opening paragraph from: John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[2][3][4] internet troll[5][6][7] and conspiracy theorist[8] 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.[9] He has been retweeted by President Trump.[10] As of 2018, he was working as a correspondent for One America News Network, a conservative cable news television channel.[11] To: John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American author,[2] political commentator, journalist, and host for the cable news television channel One America News Network,[3] and was Washington Bureau Chief at Rebel Media. [4] Posobiec is a retired officer of the United States Navy. [5] Posobiec is known for his work with the 2016 election Citizens for Trump organization. [6] with linked references as follows [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - The use of biased terms such as “alt-right, internet troll, conspiracy theorist, fake news” lead this entry to be an unreliable and biased source of information which is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. You should make changed to neutrally provide accurate information rather than biased opinions of the character of the subject Alb-davidt (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) David Theis

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Posobiec page locked

While I generally agree with the characterizations of Posobiec, surely it should be acknowledged that calling one an “internet troll” is vacuous editorializing and has no place in a purported encyclopedia. That really is not my gripe. The flat untruth that Democratic Party officials are NOT involved in a sex ring is simply propaganda of the worst variety. This should be removed. Yes, Posobiec and the Q crowd are not in touch with reality generally, however the names of several Democratic Party officials are clearly in Epstein’s flight logs, have been verified as visiting Little St. Janes and in fact have been accused by CHILD victims of sexual assault. You people know exactly what the score is and you bring shame to this entire project by burying it. (Redacted) DeuilEtoiles (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Debunked conspiracy theories, like Pizzagate, the Seth Rich thing, etc., are formed in such a way that their followers can rush to point to anything that supports them, no matter how flimsy, while totally ignoring any and all complications. There is always an out. There is always some random detail they can point to and pretend they were right all along. All the many, many errors can be ignored. The glaring failures don't need to be mentioned, because that's just "vacuous editorializing". Conspiracy theories and trolling go hand in had, because neither ever has to worry about sincerity or integrity.

Posobiec's specific claims about Pizzagate are false He admitted it, but only after the damage had been done. He spread fake news and debunked nonsense, and he is responsible for his own words and actions. Not you, not me, not Wikipedia, not Epstein, not "Democratic Party officials"...

Posobiec has made wild speculations in public, but anyone can do that. Posobiec's dislike of a politically convenient group of people who have done bad things, and his friendship with other people who have also done bad things (like the Clark bros.) are both unremarkable and insignificant to this article, unless reliable, independent sources explain them. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated reversions that violate BLP neutrality

On October 29-30, 2019 user "Snooganssnoogans" repeatedly reverted changes to the biography section to a version that violates the neutrality policy for Biographies of Living People. In specific, these reversions specifically omit rebuttals by the subject, which are specifically cited in the policy as necessary for neutrality if they are available. All added information is sourced from credible, verifiable sources. Other edits consisted of re-ordering existing information. No existing information or citations were removed or altered in a meaningful, material way. User "Snooganssnoogans" is abusing reversion authority in order to maintain ideological control over this page, and as such, is engaged in vandalism. Further reversions should not be allowed. If a further escalation is required, I request that editors come to a consensus on the proposed edits. Ihuntrocks (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

Update: User "Snooganssnoogans" has once again reverted the page with a false claim of "whitewashing," despite all added material being tied to reliable, credible sources. Again, these edits by user "Snooganssnoogans" violate the BLP neutrality requirements by removing rebuttals for claims by the subject which can be sourced reliably. User "Snooganssnoogans" is engaged in page vandalism and a consensus is required on these actions. Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

Update: Please refer to revision 923686886 for content that is repeatedly reverted by user "Snooganssnoogans." It should be noted that the user "Grayfell" undid revision 923687852, this user also claimed "whitewashing." Neither "Snooganssnoogans" nor "Grayfell" have provided justification for this accusation, and it can be observed from the sourcing of the above-listed revisions that all edits contained citations from reliable, credible sources and were presented in a neutral, factual manner about the subject consistent with the BLP policy on neutrality. The reversions enacted by both of these users specifically remove credibly sourced rebuttals by the subject to specific accusations -- something which is listed in the BLP policy regarding neutral presentation. As such, the current version of the page does not provide a neutral, factual presentation of information.

Resolution by consensus is needed, as further attempts to update this page with any information which does not fit within the chosen narrative of users "Snooganssnoogans" and "Grayfell" regarding this subject will inevitably be undone, constituting an edit war in violation of Wikipedia policy. Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

Proposed edits, including reliable, verifiable sourcing, presented in accordance with the BLP policy on neutrality which are repeatedly reverted by "Snooganssnoogans" and "Grayfell." It should again be noted that some information is sourced from the existing material of the article and merely moved to the introduction section, some is new and includes reliable, verifiable sources, and some is existing information which has undergone no material change, with the exception that the language has been brought into line with neutral presentation requirements. The only new information added to this section which did not exist in other parts of the article is the information about #Macronleaks (which is reliably sourced) and rebuttals of accusations of alt-right association (also backed by reliable sources). No allegations of negative behavior or accusations have been removed, in keeping with the BLP policy on public figures. Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

Update: I have proposed the following changes, which have been repeatedly reverted by other users. These changes have been reverted without clarification, despite these changes citing reliable, verifiable sources, and despite these changes bringing the article in line with Wikipedia's BLP policies on neutrality and public figures. I request a consensus be reached. Barring a consensus, I will request a further escalation. At present, it would seem that a small cadre of editors is attempting to cast this page in a non-neutral manner and is working in a concerted fashion to disallow the inclusion of verifiable, credibly sourced neutral or positive information. Further, this cadre of editors has reinforced this impression by the use of the word "whitewashing" in their revision notes when neutral or positive factual biographic information is added about the subject, indicating that they have a view that the subject should be viewed in a negative light, rather than in a neutral light as required by Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons and the public figure guidelines therein. The following is the test of my proposed edits which continue to be reverted by this cadre of editors, presented for consensus:

John "Jack" Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985) is a correspondent for One America News Network, a conservative cable news television channel. Posobiec is a United States Navy veteran, having held the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade, and worked in naval intelligence including a deployment at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Of particular note, in the final hours of the May 2017 French Presidential contest between Emmanuel Macron, a centrist who supports the European Union, and Marine Le Pen, an anti-immigration nationalist, Posobiec located a 9 GB archive of Macron's emails, photographs, and internal documents that had been anonymously leaked onto the internet. He posted the archive onto Twitter using the hashtag #Macronleaks. The hashtag went viral and the archive of emails led to information being disclosed about Macron and his campaign staff. He has at times been characterized by critics and political opponents as alt-right, an internet troll, and a conspiracy theorist. However, Posobiec rejects the association with the alt-right, identifying as a "conservative Republican" or "New Right." In 2017, Posobiec hosted the Rally Against Political Violence, a right-wing event organized in opposition to the alt-right. Opponents often attempt to tie Posobiec to the debunked conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring but Posobiec has clarified that his involvement was meant to discredit this conspiracy theory. He is well-known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter and has been retweeted by President Trump.

Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

Sources

Update: User "Greyfell" has reverted revision 923692439 on that user's talk page after an attempt to request that the user engage in the consensus process here. This is bad-faith behavior. Talk pages have been updated for users "Grayfell" (reverted), "Ad Orientum", "Evergreen Fir", and "Snooganssnoogans" regarding the proposed edits above. Thus far, none of these users have engaged with the request for consensus on this page. Ihuntrocks (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

I disagree with the proposed changes as it elevates "Macronleaks" above more general and important information about him. Further, qualifying the labels of "alt-right" and "internet troll" as just criticisms diminishes them as just epitaphs. Reliable sources characterize him this way, and so should we. The proposed edits whitewash and would engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Macronleaks could be moved to another section. The assertion that you make regarding the accusations of alt-right association particularly are contrary to the BLP policy on public figures, where the subject has denied such accusations (and where credible sources for such a denial also exist and are provided by those other than the subject). Example from BLP: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." My proposed edits do not remove the allegations and characterize them accurately in terms of source. This edit is therefore still in dispute.

As for the rest of the edits to which there is no objection: Do you offer any objections, or can we assume consensus on the rest of the content? Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

You're going to need more people to weigh in on this for WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I think we have "clear and convincing" levels of evidence from reliable sources that, though he contests the labels, these labels are appropriate without qualifiers. For example, we do not say that "critics of Uri Geller claim he uses conjuring tricks to simulate the effects of psychokinesis and telepathy". Rather, we state is as fact because that's how sources state it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with the wall of text you posted above, but your proposed lead has lot of problems: the introduction should highlight the things Posobiec is best known for. He is not best known for Macronleaks, or his service in the Navy, or his work as a correspondent. He is best known as a conspiracy theorist. His "critics" appear to compose basically every reliable source available to us, so it strikes a false balance to present this as if there's any serious question about his reputation as a purveyor of nonsense. There's definitely no support for these changes, and it is highly unlikely that there will be support for these changes. If you want to pursue this issue further, then please keep your comments brief and civil or other editors are likely to just ignore them. Nblund ^talk 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: EvergreenFir -- Setting aside that making a claim to have magical powers is wholly different from contesting an assertion by others that someone is associated with a group or ideology with which they do not consider themselves associated, the sources which are listed for rebuttal are sources which are considered valid elsewhere in the article (New Yorker, NBC). Furthermore, a rebuttal to a claim is allowed and present in the body of the article, so I am not convinced that a rebuttal would not be allowed in important biographical information, given the public figures section of the BLP policy and to meet neutral presentation requirements. If the information is important enough to assert, then rebuttals from credible, reliable sources are important enough to include.

Re: Nblund -- Posobiec's work as a correspondent is already listed in the biographical section. It is his current form of employment, he's still living, and that is how the majority of people are exposed to his professional work. I do not see validity in that criticism, particularly since the information is, again, already included. With respect to presenting allegations against a subject, I again encourage you to view the public figure examples under the Biographies of Living Persons category. Failure to include rebuttal information from credible, reliable sources (considered reliable elsewhere in the article) would lead in this case to the willing publishing of defamatory information, as the rebuttal is available through credible sources. See Wikipedia's policy on defamatory information in the BLP policy.

RE: EvergreenFir and Nblund -- If there is a significant question of balance when attempting to include credible neutral or positive biographical information from verifiable sources, and it is demanded that only negative information be kept when other information is available and appropriate per the BLP, then this section should be flagged with a neutrality policy dispute notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihuntrocks (talk Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's how the Washington Post described him today: The conspiracy theory was advanced by Jack Posobiec, a far-right provocateur known for promoting the “Pizzagate” lie.. Even if he were know primarily as a correspondent, that doesn't explain why you would want to dedicate several sentences to describing his military career or his role in Macronleaks. Nothing in WP:BLP requires us to give Posobiec's transparent falsehoods equal billing to the characterization that appears in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: Washington Post Characterization -- In an article on "Pizzagate" the Washington Post (here identifies Posobiec as "Jack Posobiec, a former Navy Reserve intelligence officer who had spent much of the previous year as a leader of a pro-Trump grass-roots organization". It further quotes Posobiec, in a lengthy description of the events as saying, “I didn’t have any preconceived notions,” he said. “I wasn’t sure. I thought I could just show it was a regular pizza place.”

It would stand to reason that the Washington Post's reporting about the event should take precedence over other instances in the same publication to where the event is alluded, but without further description. This brings to light further instances of potential source reliability used in the article to characterize Posobiec, and as such, should be reviewed under the BLP policies regarding sources as well. It also showcases a reliable publication (the same you chose) citing Posobiec's military service career in his biographical introduction, calling into question any contention that this information belongs in his biography. It is strongly urged that we submit this page for a warning for neutrality guideline violations while this is under review, and I am considering making such a request at this time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

@Ihuntrocks: the best place for further discussion might be WP:NPOVN. Or to start an WP:RFC EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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[9]. 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)

Revenge reverts

Nothing more to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By User:MONGO [10]. MONGO has never edited this article before. Before today, they've never commented on the talk page of this article either. This revert seems to be motivated by the fact that I made a comment at a 3RR report that MONGO filed against User:Snooganssnoogans where he also made threats against User:SPECIFICO ("you're next!") - the report was declined but MONGO refused to drop it [11]. After I made my comment he seems to have checked my edit history, found an article where I'm involved in a disagreement (and being harassed) and proceeded to jump in. This is petty at the very least. More like it's WP:HARASSMENT and WP:STALKING. Of course, simultaneously with engaging in this kind of behavior MONGO complains about ... civility and "pleasant editing environment". Par for the course. You know what makes for an "unpleasant editing environment"? When some editors follow you around just to get their kicks in and pursue petty grudges. Volunteer Marek 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Merely reverted back to the admin status you are edit warring over. This page, BTW, appeared on a noticeboard I watch. Please bring forth your bad faith accusations to any noticeboard you choose. I concur however that upon reading this article that there are NPOV and BLP concerns, so the template is valid.--MONGO (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think Ad Orientem's previous administrative intervention in this article has any bearing on this dispute. They are involved in the edit war, having reverted to add the tag twice. This is a matter that is firmly in the realm of a content dispute (as opposed to BLP concerns, which should just be redacted, at least temporarily). At any event, I have protected the page for one week. Now substantive explanations of why the tag should or should not stay in place are due. El_C 18:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC) There's no such thing as "admin status" for an article. An admin does not decide on content as an admin. As far as content is concerned, an admin is just a regular editor and their opinion holds no more weight than a regular user. Which you know since you've been around for awhile. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: except, it seems Ad Orientem continue to deem themselves an uninvolved admin, having applied administrative discretion (including, explicitly, in an admin note) to direct participants to retain the tag, while the matter is being discussed. At the moment, I don't really have time to investigate this, so I'm not going to challenge that assertion further at this time. But if you, yourself, take issue with their decision, you should bring your concerns to the Admin board so they can come under proper review. El_C 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC) It’s not THAT egregious and I think they were acting in good faith, so admin board is not necessary. However, once you start taking sides in content disputes - and that’s what restoring a NPOV tag is - then you’re no longer acting as an admin but as a regular content editor, whether you declare yourself as involved or not. Freakin’ a. You guys already have way more power so please don’t try to grab even more of it for yourself, by giving yourself privileged status when dealing with content issues. There’s no such thing as “admin status” for an article. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the strike-out above...indeed, I too saw it as an admin note to leave tag up until the issues are resolved.--MONGO (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC) That’s not an “admin action”. Whether tag stays or goes is decided by editors in the usual manner. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC) What you should do is give me a reason I shouldn't put a SD ATTACK tag atop the article once the protection is lifted. But first, apologize to all you have insulted here on this page.--MONGO (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) I have no idea what an "SD ATTACK tag" is but I do know that since you purposefully came to this article to engage in revenge-reverting after I made a comment on your 3RR report not to your liking (while disingenuously complaining about "unpleasant editing environment", lol), the apology is owed to me. Also a cessation of your WP:STALKING. The consensus - as the discussion and the edit history clearly show - is that the tag is spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 21:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC) As I stated, you have concerns (which you certainly seem to make with a deep conviction) I suggest you post them at your local noticeboard for review, since of course I am doing this stalking and etc. I don't give a rats ass what the talkpage history shows...things change on the pedia...as "you know".--MONGO (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

add "List of conspiracy theories" link?

add List of conspiracy theories wikilink, such as at "See also"? X1\ (talk) 20:05, 9 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)

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:

<NFCC removed>

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:

<NFCC removed>

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! Tony Podesta had some weird artwork featuring children, the emails discussed a pool party for children that I thought was weird, Comet Ping Pong catered to children... 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)