Talk:Jack Posobiec/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problematic impartial tone that grossly breaches BLP protections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations for Internet Troll listed below.

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

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

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

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

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

“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”

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

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

Soibangla, I see the four new articles you added into the lead, replacing the previous ones that failed BLP. Upon looking at the titles for these newly added articles, I instantly noticed something that they all had in common. 3/4 of the articles focus on Donald Trump retweeting Posobiec, minus one (RollCall article). But rather that article was about Rand Paul retweeting Posobiec. I mean look at the titles of all the articles you linked:

1)Donald Trump retweets far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec who took 'rape Melania' sign to rally -- by Maya Oppenheim (January 15,2018)

2) Rand Paul Retweeted PizzaGate Conspiracy Theorist -- by Eric Garcia (July 18, 2018)

3) Amid Criticism Over Charlottesville, Trump Retweets 'Pizzagate' Conspiracy Theorist -- by "no author listed" (August 15,2017)

4) Trump's retweet storm: A Pizzagate conspiracy theorist, a train hitting CNN, and accusations of fascism -- by Jessica Estepa (August 15, 2017)

Two of these articles are about the exact same thing and were published on the very same date Aug 15th 2017. This is where you start to lose people on the argument that a “major viewpoint held is that Posobiec is a Conspiracy theorist”. The only articles available that call Posobiec as a Conspiracy theorist, all revolve around him being retweeted? Being retweeted by the President is WP:NOTABLE? Does it pass WP:10YT? Absolutely Not.

To review, as it stands the current "defense" reasonings to break BLP protections and violate MOS:LABEL & WP:REDFLAG labeling him a "Conspiracy Theorist" in the lead: Are the 4 articles you have cited in the lead (and as far as I could find the ONLY 4 google searchable articles that pass WP:RS) three of them are about the President retweeting Posobiec. The other article, is about Rand Paul retweeting Posobiec. All these articles span from 2017-2018. There aren’t any new articles outlining Posobiec partaking in anything resembling conspiracy theories. None. That’s because he isn’t a conspiracy theorist. Continuation of claiming he is a "Conspiracy Theorist" is beating a dead horse, the dead horse being a few articles from 2017-2018, centered around the non-notable event of the president retweeting Posobiec who pushed a couple of conspiracy theories around. That is weak, and I find that reasoning quite dubious.

This is why MOS:LABEL exists:

“Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.”

I don’t think we should strip the information about him pushing conspiracy theories out of the article. Keep it in the body and per MOS:LABEL use in-text attribution on a case by case basis. But we absolutely have to remove the "Conspiracy Theorist" & "Internet Troll" label from the lead. And if this is such a widespread issue, can you point me in any relevant noticeboards? MaximusEditor (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's a key part of the very reason he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. You're welcome to open a request for comment on this issue to gather broader opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN, November 2020: "...a well-known conspiracy theorist who has spread false claims about voter fraud...Jack Posobiec, a far-right agitator who is known for spreading conspiracies and disinformation on the Trump-friendly One America News Network."[1] Posobiec worked at One America News for three years, until this year. "The channel is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories."[2] Maybe someone else can tell you where to escalate this as a policy issue, I dunno where, but that's where your argument belongs because many are characterized as conspiracy theorists in their leads with solid sourcing. But as NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned, maybe open an RfC to see what others think. soibangla (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

A very non-neutral article

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

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

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

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Warst04: See my comment directly above. Feel free to also suggest specific changes, or even a new draft version of the article for discussion if you like, but vague statements like this are not actionable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree this whole article i biased, but I would like to suggest we clean up the lead paragraph in particular. This reads like a hit piece and seems to be infringing on a lot of WP:BLP issues. Yes there are WP:RS but the part about being an Internet Troll? I will be removing that promptly. WP:NOTABLOG Lets try to keep the page within Wiki standards. I'd be up for re-drafting although I know that would take quite some discussion and dedication. Lets just start with the lead paragraph first. Lets get that to a good spot first. -EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That you disagree with cited reliable sources is irrelevant. The sources describe him as an "Internet troll," and therefore so do we. If you remove reliably-sourced material without consensus, expect to be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of reliably-sourced material - there are multiple reliable non-opinion sources cited which describe Posobiec as an "Internet troll." That you don't like that description is irrelevant - your problem is with the sources, and we can't fix that. The same is true for the other material you removed from the article's lede - Posobiec's promotion of Pizzagate is perhaps the most famous thing about him, and certainly merits placement in the lede - at least as much as his work for a far-right TV channel. Please review the bold, revert, discuss cycle - your BOLD edits have been reverted, and now it's incumbent on you to discuss and gain consensus for your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'd like to understand your stream of thought. I'd really do. Do you at least consider the possibility of this article leaning heavily to the left, as a hit piece painting a caricature of this man as everything evil the polite liberal society dislikes, or, after reading it through and through, do you see it as a genuine representation of what he stands for? Can you at least fathom the possibility that all the "reliable sources" skew massively left or is it just my bias? D Daimaoh (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If, as you claim, all the "reliable sources" skew massively left, then that is a "problem" Wikipedia cannot fix, because by foundational policy, we cannot use unreliable sources. Is it problematic that most right-wing sources have chosen to debase themselves into barely-above-parody nonsense-purveyors peddling disinformation, lies, and wishcasting? Sure is. But Wikipedia can't fix that problem. Only the conservative movement can. Someone who has actively promoted the idea that there was a secret cabal of pedophiles abusing children in a pizza restaurant's nonexistent basement is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist - are you suggesting otherwise? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll google this pizza thing later. But I just heard this man talk in a podcast for about two hours and everything he said contradicts everything that is written in this article. Either he is wrong about himself, or the sources are biased. And this is the pattern throughout articles and bios of anyone leaning even mildly to the right. Someone complains about bias, someone replies a lecture on "reliable sources". From your comment I can infer your political stance, so I guess that's what Wikipedia is about. D Daimaoh (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll google this pizza thing later...I just heard this man talk in a podcast suggests that you may know where he is but not how he got here, and so you may not want to infer your political stance without knowing about how he got here, as others do. soibangla (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

He is wrong about himself, and you are wrong to believe his word and not the word of every other reliable source. It's that simple. Reality does not have a political bias. The reality is that he is, indeed, this person. Jorm (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason I came to discuss in this particular article is that it smells exactly like other articles of "right wing" people, like, say, Jordan Peterson. Every view the man has was misconstrued and mangled for political purposes on your beloved and holy reliable sources. I read what the man wrote and nothing of the sort was present there. If I had relied exclusively upon the sanctified NYT hit pieces (which is a "reliable source"), I would have come out with nothing but the opinion you all probably have of him as well. Also quite interesting is how a comment like this gathered immediate attention from people politically in lockstep. D Daimaoh (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I read what the man wrote is all nice and good, but it isn't worth a bucket of spit around here, for you, me or anyone else. the opinion you all probably have of him as well is not opinion but rather what reliable sources report, which is what Wikipedia is all about, unlike just about any other user-generated site you will find, such as, you know...Twitter and Parler and stuff. Some are better than others in making that distinction. soibangla (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Soiblanga, hence why I came here to the talk page and did not go on editing to my will. But, please indulge me. If a very politically motivated journalist decided to write a hit piece on me that went contrary to everything I wrote and talked about, and I had a wikipedia page, how would such dispute be decided? In favor of whom? Who would you support?D Daimaoh (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to argue about whether Wikipedia should drop its core policy of WP:RS, this is really not the place. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm proposing. And you know it. I just wish someone could be a little bit more intellectually honest like the first response and I'm getting none of that. D Daimaoh (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You are talking about our "beloved and holy reliable sources", and later scarequoting "reliable sources", and talking about replacing reliably sourced content with your personal impressions taken from hearing the subject speak, so I'm not sure how I'm misinterpreting you here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not talk about replacing anything, hence why I didn't edit the article myself. I'm asking if you fathom the possibility of your, yes, holy ""reliable sources"" (double scare quotes) being politically motivated towards a very specific agenda and how that could potentially damage the stupendous wikipedia reputation. D Daimaoh (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On that matter, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof's reply above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is where WP:RSN and WP:RSP come in. If you think reliable sources shouldn't be deemed so, that's where to go. Make your case, get consensus for it. soibangla (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. Continuing to just complain about reliable sources and article bias isn't productive. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

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.

---

None of the following is true. Wikipedia will not be viewed as a source of information if it continues to lie about conservative people. The following about Jack Posbiec is a lie. "is an American alt-right[2][3][4] and alt-lite[5] political activist, television correspondent and presenter,[6] conspiracy theorist,[7] and Internet troll.[8][9][10][11] Posobiec is best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[12][13][14][15] He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring." 2603:8000:3703:1593:7C69:264E:AE4C:945C (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You see those little numbers in square brackets you copied into the above? They are links to the reliable sources we used to support whatthis bit of the article says. This shows that it isn't wikipedia who is being dishonest, but yourself, so we wont be changing the article for you. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly this is the best response I've seen to these bad-faith "requests" by the chucklefuck set. Jorm (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2021 (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.

White Supremacy

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

This article doesn't say that Posobeic is a white supremacist or antisemite, it says that he has "us[ed] white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points", which as you have said, the sources support. As for the white genocide cites, that statement is cited in the "Political activities" section. But if you look through his twitter this is original research -- we have to go by what reliable sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say he has used white supremacist or antiemetic talking points in any of the articles and also to imply someone is using those talking points is to imply that they actually believe in those talking points and are therefore white supremacists or antisemites. The white genocide conspiracy theory or any other "white supremacist" talking points and conspiracy theories he has supposedly brought up aren't in any of the articles cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.228.14 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Posobiec has tweeted about 'white genocide,' a white nationalist conspiracy theory and recruitment tool that claims governments are trying to cull white people into extinction through policies of mass immigration, integration, racial diversity and abortion." Cite 10
• "Posobiec, who once openly backed the anti-Semitic elements of the alt-right movement on Twitter but has since—along with a number of other pro-Trump personalities—tried to distance himself from it, is verified on the site, where he maintains an active account." Cite 11
• "Jack Posobiec, a man who has repeatedly shared the '1488' numerical code for white supremacy" Cite 12
• "Jack Posobiec, the Trumpist conspiracist who once tweeted the white supremacist code '1488'" Cite 13
• "Posobiec targeted Jewish journalists with antisemitic hate, as Hatewatch detailed in a story about his links to the white supremacist movement... Hatewatch detailed in part one of this series that in 2016, Posobiec marked CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, a group of journalists at a Peter Thiel press conference, and the showrunners for HBO's 'Game of Thrones' with the antisemitic 'echoes' meme, which was popularized by white supremacists." (etc. -- this article goes into more detail and I won't quote it all here) Cite 35

Cite 35 also references this article, which I've added to the list of citations in our article since it is best to be explicit. Again, too much to quote here.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the standard here is that the person must explicitly endorse nazism in an article in order to be labeled as such? Author above provided several references to these nazi dog whistles, statements that would not make sense under any other conditions --80.213.65.101 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The standard is that reliable sources must widely use a label for a person before we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The entry doesn't fully clarify the 1488 meme, and in fact plays it down somewhat. The 14 is from the Fourteen Words, but the 88 refers to HH = Heil Hitler. So it is inaccurate to say "*1488, or the Fourteen Words*," as they are *not the same thing*. Posobiec has associated with far right extremists such as Richard Spencer, and objected to the presence of Jews in his vicinity, using the triple parentheses to ID Jews, so it is not unfair to describe his repeated use of 1488 as indicative of Nazi sympathies. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.64.227 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The ADL says that Alt-lite is defined as (literally in their words) Today, the alt lite, sometimes referred to as the New Right, is loosely-connected movement whose adherents generally shun white supremacist thinking, but who are in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others. Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim; the group abhors everyone on “the left” and traffics in conspiracy theories, including #Pizzagate, which claimed there was evidence of a child slavery ring operating inside a DC pizzeria. The series of increasingly outrageous lies led to death threats against the pizzeria’s owner and employees, and ultimately resulted in a gunman opening fire inside the restaurant in an attempt to “save” the imaginary children."

The ADL also notes that the Alt-right is defined as (again, in their own words) The alt right (short for “alternative right”) is a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and anti-Semites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racist, anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideology. Many seek to re-inject such bigoted ideas into the conservative movement in the United States. The alt right skews younger than other far right groups, and is very active online, using racist memes and message forums on 4chan, 8chan and certain corners of Reddit.

They then note the following on Jack Posobiec: Jack Posobiec, a conspiracy theorist and author, organized June’s Rally Against Political Violence, after learning that Richard Spencer would be speaking at the Free Speech Rally. He also helmed the DeploraBall, a 2017 inaugural event that attracted many from the alt right and alt lite spheres. He has enthusiastically promoted a range of lies, including the Pizzagate hoax, and attempted to discredit anti-Trump activists by planting an inflammatory “Rape Melania” sign at a protest event. He frequently tweets anti-Muslim sentiments, and has harassed former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin with anti-Muslim slurs online and in person, tweeting, “I screamed ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ at Huma Abedin." He also posted to Facebook: “Citizen Journalist Jack Posobiec Asks Huma Abedin “Is the Muslim Brotherhood Paying Your Legal Fees?” Posobiec was among the protesters who stormed the stage during New York Public Theater’s controversial run of “Julius Caesar,” shouting, “You are all Goebbels! You are all Nazis like Joseph Goebbels... you are inciting terrorists," and, “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!” Posobiec has clashed verbally with white supremacist Richard Spencer, who called Posobiec’s Rally Against Political Violence “pathetic.” Posobiec was until recently the Washington correspondent for right-wing Rebel Media.

Thus, With this, I can conclude that Jack Posobiec is not a Alt-right, but is instead a Alt-lite. Gastropod Gaming (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The man is not an alt-right

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

(a) That's not how it works, (b) her own views are absolutely in line (see Candace_Owens#Political_views). (c) not everyone who is alt-right is a white supremacist. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you make an excellent point, but the way this article is worded can you blame anybody who reads it to think anything else? This article has MASSIVE bias, terrible WP:NPOV, WP:DUE specifically in the lead paragraph and seems to be just a WP:COATRACK list of controversies. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

“Well, he spoke to a black guy, therefore all these RS’d descriptions of him being a white supremacist are therefore FAKE NEWS.” (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

There is a lot of incorrect information including white supremacy about this person of interest which I would personally like to correct, it is obviously been done by someone as a joke or someone who has been misinformed. Flameboyskunk (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Specific suggestions supported by reliable sources are always welcome. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Improper refactoring of editor's comments in talk

An editor placed a comment here making a general criticism about the neutrality of the article. Cullen328 removed their comment erroneously citing wp:notaforum. The item linked to that is a part of wp:not and does not prohibit making a general comment on the article. The common meaning / situation / use citing wp:notaforum is referring to the talk page policy which says that the talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. So not only does that policy not support such a removal, it actually prohibits such refactoring without justification by one of the listed exceptions. Anyone can make such a mistake and I reverted the refactoring. But then @Calton:then not only doubled down by repeated the mistake, but then added a misguided sarcastic comment directed towards me "remember wp:notaforum" as if I didn't know it, particularly in view it already being the topic of the two edit summaries. And then asserted that the refactoring was OK due to the comment not having a specific actionable item. This is not a reason for removal / one of those exceptions. A comment (without a specific action item) about the general neutrality of the article is certainly acceptable. Calton you should revert your refactoring. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Calton you should revert your refactoring.

Nope.

...repeated the mistake

You misspelled "correct action".

The point of the article Talk pages is for improving the articles. So help us out all out: what is the comment asking for? What is the actual change being requested here? What, specifically, is actionable here? And was there an actual point behind the rules-lawyering that would, you know, improve the actual article instead of merely aiding and encouraging the long-time flood of disruptive and time-wasting content-free complaints on articles about U.S. fringe political figures and movements? What point do you think you think you're making with YOUR disruptive and time-wasting complaints? --Calton | Talk 04:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So you ignored the policy-based items in my post and doubled down with new false characterizations / accusations. Fortunately for you it's not my dance to pursue the conduct-related issues other than to note them here. And to note for others that people have been improperly deleting critiques of the neutrality of this article from the talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What citation for white supremacy? didn't see it

What citation for white supremacy? didn't see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:FF08:900:D064:FFE2:C6D7:B857 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

Please add this to your list of references along with his IMDB: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec

Please add to the end of political activities: "Southern Poverty Law Center listed Jack Posobiec as an extremist for the first time on June 8, 2022, citing his links to hate groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers." With this link: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec Meh6000 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: IMDB is not a reliable source. I used this press release https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/splc-publishes-extremist-file-jack-posobiec instead since it is a much better citation, and correct the date to the 9th. I've also slightly rephrased your sentence to be grammarically correct. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph content

I couldn't care less about this fellow, but this is a politial attack more than an article. Somebody ought to rewrite the article to make it neutral. Wikipedia can't just be a pro-Democrate web site if it is to survive and prosper as an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There have been numerous and constant comments in the talk page that are critical of the content of this article – starting an RFC to discuss the lead paragraph, specifically labels. Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy? Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards? MaximusEditor (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Not an RFC? I'm confused. What is this RFC about? (1) Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy? Yes of course. Jack P. is a person, hence this article about him falls under BLP. (2) Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards? Are you asking if all 70 references in the article meet WP:RS? Why do we need an rfc for that? Best, Mvbaron (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron, It is clear, brief and concise that the RfC wants to discuss the lead paragraph, specifically labels. So no, all 70 sources cited aren't being criticized. The RfC was created because there is a lot of people unhappy with this article and nothing being done about it. Every instance brought up in this talk page about the article being badly written is met with the same cut and paste response. "Wikipedia just reports what WP:RS prints." There have been discussions outlining how there are problems with the articles sourced and how most of the claimed "reliable sources" dont actually meet Wikipedia standards of reliable sourcing by breaking WP:HEADLINES and WP:RSOPINION. Thus why the RfC asks the questions about the veracity of the sources in the lead. Agreed Jack P. is a person, so hence his article should absolutely fall under WP:BLP, but the question being asked in the RfC was is he fairly being protected by those BLP policies. The question is not does he qualifies for BLP protections by simply being alive. Due to the excessive use of articles breaching WP:HEADLINES & WP:RSOPINION, I dont think there is enough WP:RS to warrant some of the labels (Conspiracy Theorist, Internet Troll & Alt-Right) in the lead paragraph unless you grossly violate WP:REDFLAG, therefore no he isn't being fairly protected by BLP. I propose that we take out the labels "Conspiracy Theorist", "Internet Troll" & "Alt-Right", leave the articles that dont violate HEADLINES and/or RSOPINION in the body.If other editors are also confused I will improve the wording in the RfC. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I understand the question better now. If you want I can help you word a neutral RFC (this one is too vague I think). Mvbaron (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: As I recall saying to MaximusEditor previously, I believe this issue relates to a broader Wikipedia policy of whether individuals should should have "labels" supported by reliable sources, rather than relates to Posobiec specifically. I am aware that some editors have complained about this BLP being biased or unfair, as we commonly see with many BLPs, notwithstanding the content being supported by multiple reliable sources. I also recall suggesting to MaximusEditor that this issue should not be raised in this article, but rather in a venue relating to broader Wikipedia policies. I continue to recommend that MaximusEditor pursue that avenue. soibangla (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC. This should state a simple problem or question, not an opened-ended and vague "Is this article good enough?" fishing expedition. I'm removing the RfC tag from this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) There is no specific RFC here. But the lead is highly problematic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. This lead looks like an essay-like selection of disparagements against Posobiec. I'll watch this for a week...after that please ping me if desired. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that this is far too vague. If there is a dispute over some more specific issue, an RfC can of course be held regarding that if not resolved by discussion here, but "A lot of people complained, is everything okay?" is far too vague to get useful feedback. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The article reads like an overt hit piece. It falls far from Wikipedia's standards for integrity. At the least, the language should be more like: "these sources allege that ....". How can one obviously politicized source can be considered an authoritative marker of "truth" for someone who works for a competing source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.153.234 (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

÷==Responding to request==

I was requested to see if I could help formulate an RFC. Happy to try to help but upon a closer look I wouldn't know where to start / what any particular question / debate is. It looks like the object of the above RFC was express concern with and ask about the lead. As with all articles reflecting a real-world contest (in this case between the two "sides" of US politics), letting that contest entering into the editing of an article can make it a mess and unpleasant for the editors and dominate the situation, with mild wiki-lawyering being one of the common tools for this. It all goes a lot better and is more fun if folks set that aside just try to make it a good and informative article. The good/bad news is that this article has a lot of simple blatant problems. The reason why I call that good news is that you could move a pretty big step forward by just have an experienced uninvolved editor blaze through it and fix a bunch of simple wikipedia problems. One thing that they would do is lighten up on the uninformative value-laden words. Also another fix under that category is to turn the lead into a summary of the article, which is what a lead is supposed to be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

North8000, This is a very reasonable course of action. How do we proceed? MaximusEditor (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

One good start would be to nuke the lead (except for the last sentence and the first 80% of the first sentence) and start replacing that with a summary of the article.North8000 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There are many places where the article terms claims "conspiracy theories" where there was no claim of a conspiracy. Suggest using that term where the claim included a claim of a conspiracy. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, about 99% of all statements made by public officials are "unsubstantiated" and "claims" and are generally not titled as such. Suggest taking those words out of that section title.North8000 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggest reviewing content to lean toward informative encyclopedic summary style. There a lot of choppy content there that looks like quotes etc. cherry picked for bad optics. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that two editors who have advocated major changes to the article have agreed, I hope they will proceed incrementally at first so everyone can see where they're going, rather than immediately engaging in massive edits that other editors must disassemble to comment on. soibangla (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps before opening an RfC, you can specify some of the simple blatant problems you see. What, specifically, are the uninformative value-laden words you see that are unsupported by reliable sources? What are the bunch of simple wikipedia problems? soibangla (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to dive in, but one note. Meeting wp:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not something that forces inclusion. Your first question implies the reverse; that the only reason for not putting some uninformative value-laden words in (or removing them) would be if they were unsourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually also support the changes outlined by North8000 and would be happy to aid in these edits, as I"m sure most of the people on this talk page who come to complain this page is in very poor shape would. Fails NPOV and BLP. Time to fix it. EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I encourage editors to begin making changes in an incremental fashion rather than in a sudden massive overhaul fashion which some might be tempted to do if they perceive the article is in very poor shape. North8000 says the article is rife with simple blatant problems but doesn't articulate what any of them are, nor made any edit to illustrate a problem. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not overly eager to edit this article but would be happy to try a few small ones to see how that goes / if such is wanted here. Feel more than free to free to revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a close look when looking for some tweaks to make. To really improve the article I would need to read all of the sources and also research this individual but I really want to go that deep in regarding this individual. And so I plan to just make tweaks in smaller areas to wikify a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pizzagate is not "controversial," it's a series of defamatory lies about living people protected by BLP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything that is beyond controversial is also controversial. Having it in the title of the section means making that statement about every item under the title. So the fact that you identified one beyond-controversial item is not a basis to reapplying that term to the section title. Plus, the place for such statements is in the content, where they can be footnoted and sourced. Let's have a discussion of this here. I ask this not because I want a particular result on the heading but because I'd like to see if it will be possible to work on the issues in this article. If not, I'm not interested in trying to help at this article. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I came here based on a request to help. I don't have interest in the topic of this article and it doesn't look like there is much hope fixing it's severe problems at the moment. I plan to leave and unwatch. If I can help, please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is what looks like attempts to improve the article overall from an outside neutral editor who was brought in by RFC and asked to make edits is getting blocked albeit in goodfaith. This edit, which was reverted under the condition that we need consensus? This edit was discussed diplomatically arriving at the consensus to implement small changes gradually to make the article more neutral and less of a WP:BLP liability. I think that particular editor, North8000 was on the right track, he was a bold editor that was brought in from an RFC and asked to make changes, but was rather met with a bit of undeserved hostility. The RFC that brought him in was shut down very promptly, but none the less the fleeting RFC garnered some attention, enough to get the ball rolling in the right direction. (even though the RFC was shut down, I think everybody understood what point was trying to be conveyed) which was getting rid of value laden labels and BLP infractions in the lead. Obviously Pizzagate can't be taken off the page (as it shouldn't be), but Wikipedia is suppose to be a current picture of the present time and all the WP:RS cited in this article supporting the use of some heavily value laden labels seems to hover around one or two incidents from several years ago that are mainly written as WP:RSOPINION and/or WP:HEADLINE articles (Just google it and you'll see, these labels in the lead are being held up by stilts made of toothpicks). Which raises the question; How much actual legitimate RS does it take to warrant value laden labels in a Living Persons lead paragraph? WP:REDFLAG is quite explicit, it needs to be quite a bit. Perhaps that should have been the RFC topic? I see a lot of people saying he is notable for being a conspiracy theorist, mainly notable for Pizzagate. We have RS in the article saying he conceded Pizzagate as being stupid and that he filmed it to debunk it. You can't call him a conspiracy theorist in the present tense if he's most known for Pizzagate, for which we have RS of him conceding that it was untrue. Also if substantial claims are being made, they should be attributed, make a section about the dated events surrounding Pizzagate and attribute all the journalists/outlets. Take the labels out of the lede like we are suppose to WP:LABEL, and I think everybody will be happy. Its a simple solution to keep the article neutral, and still highlight past events while attributing very bold claims to the outlets that made them. It doesn't give the reader any influence, just information. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Add under personal life, after the marriage.... and he was banned by Bumble the following year.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/bumble-bans-alt-right-pizzagater-jack-posobiec-from-app.html 45.48.174.145 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That isn't encyclopedic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)