Talk:Millennial Woes

Hope Not Hate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am concerned about a reference to a claim made by Hope not Hate. There is no consensus of the reliability of Hope not Hate, and given the context it would seem reasonable to consider Hope not Hate to have a bias. Contentious material about living persons that is not sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. The nature of the claim by Hope not Hate is very contentious and whilst it is made clear that the quote come from Hope not Hate it concerns me that such an unbias source that is lacking in reliability is referenced with regards to a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018‎

None of the claims are that contentious, and the materials from HNH is attributed to HNH, so it doesn't really matter if they're an RS so long as they're notable, which they are, per their WP article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I consider the claim that "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." to be highly contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I know someone who thinks "the sky is blue" is a contentious claim. What's your point? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was following on from my initial comment under this section, so let me reiterate and expand. claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas. Given the nature of the claim surely it would not be encyclopedic to reference a claim when the source is not regarded as a reliable source. I'm trying to address this neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas. You should probably try to actually do some research on this joker. Claiming he's a white supremacist sympathizer is not a contentious claim, either. He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. The fact that you personally object to it is completely immaterial. I object to the fact that the article Alt-right doesn't start with "The alt-right is a loose collection of fucking morons who..." but you don't see me whining about it there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. This is what I am getting at, if reliable sources can be cited to support a statement then they should be included in the wiki page. Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia. You state "we have the reliable sources to prove it" where are reliable sources to accompany the statement "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." This is a question of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018‎

The article does not claim he recited the 14 words. The article claims that HNH reported he recited them. This information is WP:DUE because it it helps defines the public perception of the subject. The information is non-contentious because there are no sources -of any quality, much less reliable sources- denying that he said them. The information is accurate because it is properly attributed. Finally; I don't know where you get the notion that "Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia." because except in rare circumstances, we don't "class" sources as unreliable. The two times HNH has appeared at RSN as the subject ([1] [2]), it easily escaped being classified as generally unreliable. It has no history of controversy, has a reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, and other features of generally reliable sources. I could make the case that attribution could be removed from this claim, and have it directly asserted in wikivoice as a fact that he stated the 14 words, and have far more evidence to support that case than you have to support the case that HNH is not a reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop going off on tangents, you seem to be getting very worked up about this. I am interested only in neutrality in regards to the aforementioned statement of this page. This is what concerns me about Hope not Hate. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone point me in the right direction for the appropriate discussion page, regarding the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is not "appropriate discussion page" for an IP editor who refuses to engage honestly with other editors. Your concerns have been addressed. The fact that you don't like the answer is immaterial. If you continue to edit this page disruptively, I will seek semi-protection for it so you can no longer edit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been perfectly honest and forthcoming, for what reason do you consider my actions dishonest? It is not a question as to whether or not I like an 'like the answer' I have not received an answer to like or dislike in the first place! You have removed a comment that I have made on the talk page, you have been overtly rude and yet you're describing my activity as disruptive, yet my activity has been nothing of the sort. As I have previously stated, "claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas" You responded "He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it." Your own opinions and research are not relevant, what is relevant is the reliability of the source, and I am concerned that the source in question 'Hope not Hate' cannot be considered reliable. And it seems that there is an essay on Wikipedia, which I already cited, which supports my concerns about the reliability of Hope not Hate. What on earth is unreasonable about any of my activity on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No you haven't. But in case you haven't figured it out: we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No I haven't what? You evidently do not want to address the matter at hand, instead you have just been disruptive and rude, perhaps I should I try and different approach to getting some answers.

Support For Slavery

Does he support slavery, though? I know of one video in which he was asked what his most extreme rightwing view is and he laughingly answered "I think maybe I'm in favour of slavery". I don't think you can call that support, though. The question was asking for him to say something outrageous and he laughed as he complied. Has he ever made an actual argument in favour of slavery? Certainly it's not a frequent topic on his channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.79.182.103 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rebel Media

I know left-leaning propagandists rely heavily on this smear tactic (along with intentionally conflating nationalism with supremacism), but in the interests of honesty and credibility this article should not refer to Rebel Media, a media organisation run by a Jew and with ehtnic minority presenters as "Alt-Right". I have no doubt you can cite Guardian articles refering to Rebel Media, Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage and even Theresa May (looking at you David Lammy) as Alt-Right, but as none of them are concerned exclusively (even at all) with the interests of people of European descent it does not qualify.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.253 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unemployed"

This line is a bit weird. Are intellectual property jobs not being counted anymore? He made, and has made thousands of dollars month on his various payment processors, and live streams. It just seems bizarre to state someone is "unemployed" when they make more money than many other British citizens. Way too much weight is given to that tabloid claim, and it should be cut from the article, no matter what other complains one may have of the person. Someone making 30-40k pounds a year, and paying taxes is far from unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:A149:C3DA:316E:4C74 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Some characterizations

• The Guardian, August 2019: "antisemitic white supremacist Colin Robertson – aka Millennial Woes"
• The Forward, December 2016: "'“Two or three years ago, I finally came to understand what is called the Jewish Question. That there are problems with the Jewish people,' said the Scottish blogger 'Millennial Woes'.... He said it was hard for him to come to terms with his anti-Semitism. 'I really didn’t want to become an anti-Semite. It’s like the biggest right-wing cliché,' he added."
• Christian Science Monitor, August 2017: "white supremacist"

Jlevi (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed these labels as he is avowedly neither of the two. He is not a white supremacist and does not believe that white people are inherently superior to other races or should dominate them, ever. Never has he argued or supported this. He has never spoken of any grand jewish conspiracy, but that Jewish groups tend to be on the vanguard of what he views as negative social changes in the West, which is true. This is supported by demographic opinion polls that show overt hostility towards White Americans amongst American jews, among other things. The articles are manufacturing negative labels on Woes and other members of the dissident right out of thin air, repeating them ad infinitum to achieve a Pavlovian response, then they're peppered over these articles in one grand POVPush smear using "reliable sources" that are not reliable nor have any actual proof of their accusations beyond the personal opinion of the journalist who wrote the article.

Goaway76 (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)