Talk:Jackson Hinkle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Viral

@DFlhb: Care to show me where exactly the two in-line citations support the claim? Because as far as I can see, neither does. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If the claim you're referring to is "viral disinformation": both The Times and The Guardian describe him as "prolific"/"thriving" and as having spread false claims (often per The Times). The Guardian documents several instances of false claims made by Hinkle that went viral.

Personally I think particularly regarding is awkward and sounds editorialised. How about changing it to Hinkle gained significant attention on X, where he has spread viral.... DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: I don't know if you are deliberately misinterpreting my question or not; I am asking you specifically about the claim that "Hinkle gained significant attention on X, particularly regarding his viral disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war." Which of the two in-line citations support this claim? He has had his following base reach millions because of posting about the war, not just because of his misinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you are deliberately misinterpreting my question or not Then you should know that I'm not. You didn't specify which claim and the section heading just says "viral". I've already said I don't like the previous wording; my reason for reverting the change (and one previous change) was the attribution of "disinformation" despite no source disputing it. Let's not escalate a misunderstanding into assuming bad faith.

How about the following, which is a copyedit of your change? Following his deplatforming, Hinkle gained significant attention on X for his tweets about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, some of which were disinformation.

It changes particularly regarding the to for his tweets about the, and some of which was described to be to some of which were. DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We can keep viral, because this is well documented, but it's true that it's a leap to suggest he went viral because of misinformation. My suggestion would be Following his deplatforming, Hinkle went viral on X over his tweets about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, some of which were disinformation. At least 20% of posts weren't misinformation, so gotta give credit where it's due. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Better than my suggestion. DFlhb (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not different in substance from what I wrote and you reverted...? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've explained my issue above. Looking back I should have copyedited it rather than reverted it. DFlhb (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a revert was not necessary, hence my questions above. Looking forward to see your copyedit instated. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, that's resolved then. First time we've reached consensus without enormous and unproductive discussion. This is a proud moment, genuinely. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It takes a bunch of reasonable editors for these moments, a rarity these days unfortunately. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Heartwarming scenes, as Wikipedia editors in a contentious topic find a consensus quickly and amicably. Never did I think I'd see the day. But in all sincerity, I was going to leave a note about "described to be misinformation" rather than just "were misinformation", so glad to see that's been sorted. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm so glad you didn't 😉 There are enough reliable sources pointing out that the misinformation was in fact, misinformation. We need to be careful about the use of disinformation, because this implies intent to deceive, but that's another can of worms. Even JC doesn't claim JH spreads disinformation, as that could be defamation. Guardian doesn't care though. Virtually impossible to prove disinfo these days. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Instagram

Was he really banned from Instagram? The Guardian article shows a correction that he was only banned for 24 hours. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if The Guardian corrected that is was only for 24 hours, it needs correcting. Or just remove. No-one care about a 24 hour suspension. Clearly not a real ban. Pls remove. [1] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I removed, as I remember I added this some time ago (obviously without noting the correcting, my bad). It was while we were all distracted by indepth discussion on Maga Communism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relationship

Hi there, I am not going to get involved with the wiki wars about his page, I just need someone to change the status about his relationship in the past tense https://56orb.ru/news/2023-12-16/miss-rossiya-orenburzhenka-anna-linnikova-porvala-s-amerikantsem-i-vozvraschaetsya-domoy-3130531 Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

The following paragraph should be removed: "Hinkle has a history of publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories, which led him to be banned for a number of social media websites, and has been the subject of several controversies.[16] His show on Twitch was removed for violating misinformation policies and propagating disinformation about the war in Ukraine.[9][11] Following his deplatforming,"

Reason: 1. There is no proof of that. 2. The links provided ij the reference are from Israeli sources. It's not fair to use a reference about Jackson from the same source that he criticizes. 3. The articles in the reference links represent the views of the Israeli sources and don't mean that Jackson has a history of misinformation and is resorting to talk about the Israeli/Palestinian war to continue his misinformation and to get more views on X platform. 2607:FEA8:F49B:3C00:386B:28DC:4EE8:B765 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hinkle's politics

Is Jackson Hinkle even a Marxist or conservative? No Marxist would support Trump. No conservative would support Xi.

His politics are incoherent if anything. KlayCax (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should leave both out of the lead for the time being. (Outside of saying what he self-describes as.) KlayCax (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The descriptions should summarize, carefully, the emphases of the best available RS, per WP:BLP, WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. His self-descriptions can be noted, but what the RS say is more important per the Wikipedia PAGs. Llll5032 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made changes based on MOS:OPEN, in order to provide the context for what Hinkle is known for, rather than his history, views, etc. Also combined the Twitter viral and misinformation sentence, as there was no reason that was separated (it's all part of the same context), as well as changed to past tense (November 2023 is in the past); he's no longer not the most viral user on Twitter. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Any Marxist can support Trump, all they need to do is decide they support Trump. Anyway, I changed first sentence based on MOS:FIRST, as supporting Maga Communism is not what he known for at all. His description of being a Maxrist-Lennist is self-attributed, so seems fine. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Also RS has described him as a conservative, so you're opinion what what Marxists/conservatives should or shouldn't be supporting isn't relevant here. Yes his politics appear incoherent, but this is not what RS states. Instead, he has been described as far-right, right-wing and conservative, while describing himself as a "Maga communist", Marxist–Leninist and an American patriot, as well documented in the body. Why his political descriptions applied by RS have been removed I have no idea. Now all that's left are his own self-descriptions, which looks like an WP:NPOV issue, as well as very unbalancing. Will return it now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

According to WP, lede is a summary of body. Instead, the lede currently reads like a hit piece. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed lead is the summary of the body, based on what is WP:DUE: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. If it sounds like a "hit piece" then you can blame WP:RS for that. Not much we can do about it either, as Hinkle has predominantly been covered in the context of going viral on Twitter for various forms of misinformation, so that's what's very much due here.

I'm not opposed to edits you've made, but I do wonder over the concept of the MOS:FIRST being the MOS:OPEN. My understanding is generally that the first sentence should be part of the opening paragrpagh, not be the opening paragraph. For example, if we were to remove Hinkle was born in San Clemente, California., which wouldn't be due based on opening paragraph style - establish the context in which the topic is being considered - then the second paragraph would merge well into the first sentence to create an opening paragraph, rather than just a first sentence; more or less as it was. So despite the useful attribution, I'm questioning whether your contributions have been an improvement. It seems like more of a workaround to avoid having an opening paragraph. Pinging some main contributors for comment on this one (>3% contribs): @Davide King @Solidarityandfreedom @Davest3r08 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really because if Wikipedia says Bellingcat should be attributed, and instead we have WP treating its claims as facts in WP voice in the very first opening paragraph of a BLP, then this certainly looks like a hit piece.

Of course it is important to note his place of birth, just like any biography lede's of other people.

The opening paragraph should be general and neutral per MOS. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Second paragraph always starts with place of birth for BLPs; please check Hitler, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu or any other article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not in George Washington's article. Have you seen a policy or guideline? Llll5032 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Yes, as the lede is a summary of the body; the body of a BLP is the biography of a living person, and not the biography of a politician or a social media figure. They are persons before they are what they do. Information should be included to provide context on where they were born and where they were educated. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian's BLP second paragraph does not start with a place of birth either. So, cite a policy? Llll5032 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: My point is that the lede summarizes the body chronologically. Second paragraph should be third; and the third should be second. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect, there is no guideline about the lead being in chronological order. This is why I referenced MOS:OPEN as the first paragraph. The context in which Hinkle is known is not being born in California, nor his fringe political views and TV appearances, etc. These are not the reasons he became notable enough to have an article either, hence it does not establish the context in which the topic is being considered at all. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My concern is less about his place of birth rather than giving controversies overwhelming prominencies in the very first paragraph after the first sentence and the opening paragraph, which contravenes these two guidelines:

MOS:LEDEBIO: The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing for biographies of living persons.

Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE states that first sentence must avoid subjective or contentious terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The key phrase here is WP:DUEWEIGHT: articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects., more relevantly, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement,...

I don't see the second paragraph as overwhelming in controversies, as it's within the context of his bans from social media, which is very much part of his "life and works". Not including this information would be whitewashing the reason for his deplatforming, that remains the prominent reason for his notability based on reliable sources, hence due. Historical perspective otherwise has nothing to do with chronological order, but instead contextualising history, so I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of this entirely.

As for the first sentece - Jackson Hinkle (born September 1999) is an American political commentator and social media influencer, who hosts the political show The Dive with Jackson Hinkle. - I don't see anything subjective or contentious, am I missing something?

In summary though, if you want to change the two paragraphs around based on your reasoning, I'm not opposed, I just don't see it as necessary of reflecting current due weight for the subject. More to the point, the lead should realistically be two paragraphs, not three, and having the MOS:FIRST as the MOS:OPEN is senseless. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:OPENPARABIO says, The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. If most WP:BESTSOURCES say he is most notable for misinformation, then it can be noted neutrally within the first few sentences. Most RS do not appear to say he is notable for being born in San Clemente. Llll5032 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

In order to review the attribution of Hinkle has a history of publishing misinformation and conspiracy theories according to Bellingcat, it appears not just be Bellingcat making these claims, so attribution not required but better sourcing is.

• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/twitter-hate-speech-accounts-palestine-clout-1234867382/
• https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qk4b/what-the-hell-is-magacommunism
• https://www.mediaite.com/news/chris-cuomo-interviews-anti-israel-conspiracy-theorist-calls-him-at-the-head-of-the-next-generation-of-political-thought/
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-cuomo-defends-chummy-interview-with-antisemitic-conspiracist-jackson-hinkle
• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/conspiracy-theory-newsletter-aoc-bar-07-26-2021/

Hence, removing attribution and improving sourcing of claims. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP, all the cited sources are either unreliable (Daily Beast/Mediate/Daily Dot) or cannot be used as fact without attribution (Rolling Stones/Bellingcat). The Vice source doesn't directly support the claim made and is OR. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Daily Beast and Daily Dot are not unreliable, there is a lack of consensus over their reliability, which is completely different. Medialite has also been considered marginally reliable, so again there is no consensus that it is unreliable as you claim. This is the same for Vice, where most of the Maga Communism content comes from, so I'd be in favour of removing all that content as well if we are removing sources that are only MREL. No opposition from me here, in fact I encourage it, a lot more could come out as well based on this (see all the better source needed tags from not even marginally reliable sources). This could be a clean article based exclusively on sources with consensus over reliability, rather than a mixture of generally reliable and marginally reliable sources, or those that are neither.

As for attribution, the concept is very clearly when a single source is making a claim, not when there are multiple. Are you suggesting that the attribution should be "According to The Daily Beast, The Daily Dot, Medialite, Rolling Stone and Bellingcat"? This could be refined to "According to media outlets", even if we are only considering Bellingcat and Rolling Stone. None of this is necessary.

As for Vice source, it quite clearly states Together, they [Haz and Hinkle] decry the “vulgarization” of Marxism by Western liberals, traffic in the language of “deep-state” conspiracies. Are you suggesting that to "traffic in the language of “deep-state” conspiracies" isn't publishing or promoting conspiracy theories? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying "According to media outlets" is original research. If there is lack of consensus over their reliability, then they are not considered reliable so far, aka "may be usable depending on context". The context here is a BLP, which "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." High quality sources are required to make this extraordinary claim on a BLP. The Vice source doesn't support the explicit claim made about Hinkle in the article. Again, this is a BLP and we should not be liberal with our editing like this. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So I've returned the Bellingcat attribution, as this disagreement is going nowhere, and it's not worth the argument. "Publishing misinformation and disinformation" is however questionable phrasing, as Guardian and Financial Times clearly state "spreading disinformation". Is it misleading to say he publishes it, if RS say spreading it? Does publishing imply the creation of such content, rather than the distribution of content? Maybe a more neutral term like disseminating would make sense here. "disseminating misinformation and disinformation" for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Spreading is fine with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "spreading misinformation and disinformation", and relegate the "conspiracy theories, according to Bellingcat" to the body? It comes off as tacky to throw in a phrase like that and attribute it in the lede. The reason it has to be attributed is because only one RS says it. I have not seen anything like that in any other BLP.

I understand that Wikipedians want to ensure that our readers don't take Jackson Hinkle seriously. I don't think that should be the goal of an encyclopedia, let alone a BLP, but it is what it is. I think "spreading misinformation and disinformation" gets the point across sufficiently. Adding "and conspiracy theories, according to Bellingcat" just comes off as overkill, and borderline POV pushing. @Makeandtoss what do you think? Can we just put the "according to Bellingcat" bit in the body? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede should reflect the body; and there is a section in the body about alleged conspiracy theories. If the conspiracy theory bit is to be removed from lede, it should be done first from the body, and a critical analysis of whether the sources used are indeed RS or not; and if they are explicitly making this claim or not. Frankly I don't have the energy to do that for Hinkle's article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

POV and BLP issues

I have added these two tags until a broad range of issues are addressed; there seems to be an insistence on including potentially libelous claims in this BLP as facts without attribution, contravening the relevant WP guideline: [2]. Furthermore, controversies are given overwhelming prominency, to the point of obscuring his actual life, contravening MOS:LEDEBIO. Please note that this article falls under WP:BLP, which "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If third-party RS describe more of his actual life in proportion they could be added. Llll5032 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You've just put a template up that states This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.. Are you sure that was the one you meant? At present there are 77 sources in the Reference section. That's 77 more than none. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong tag, fixed now. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through and strip this article if you like, as per above comment? It's been discussed/proposed before, but the "liberal" approach (and lack of consensus) was to leave a lot of a poorly sourced content unfortunately. Now that certain opponents to this seem quiet, it wouldn't be a bad time. I'm all in. Needs consensus on whether just the material sourced with no discussion over reliability is removed, or whether also marginally reliable sources as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A "needs additional citations" template was added to the top, but there are no "citations needed" tags specified in the article. Where are additional citations needed? Llll5032 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are "better source needed" tags which are a good enough reason for template (that should have been dealt with along with the last lot of junk sources in my opinion). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed some tagged descriptions that did not appear to have third-party reliable sources available. Llll5032 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged more, as one source you only moved, not removed, and more RCP. I'll check over other sources another time and tag further if required. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the BLP sources template, since unreliable sources have been removed and attribution included. Unless there is something specifically wrong with the POV of the article, other than (to paraphrase) "I don't like the Western sources being used", then the neutrality template should also be removed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

As per previous disagreement, I've restructured the lead to create an MOS:OPEN, as opposed to having simply a MOS:FIRST sentence as the open, per MOS:OPENPARABIO. A few points to break down why this is better WP:NPOV (as well as an obviously better OPEN):

• The second sentence, He is known for his support of Vladimir Putin in the Russo-Ukrainian War, and for his anti-Israel views in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war., is completely neutral and helps "explain why the person is notable"
• Third sentence, Hinkle has been described as far-right, right-wing, and conservative; and is a proponent of "MAGA communism", calling on those who support the working class to ally with the MAGA movement., this is again ideal NPOV; documenting how RS describe Hinkle to provide context, as well as how he describes himself/his beliefs.
• The fourth and fifth sentence, help to supply "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."

That leaves everything controversial in the second paragraph. My only concern is that this OPEN doesn't "reflect the balance of reliable sources.", even if the second and third sentences arguably do. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note that per MOS:LEDE the lede is ideally four paragraphs, which is a guideline put in place to avoid situations like this, where information can appear to be highlighted or prioritized over other information. I don't disagree with the sentence regarding his support for Putin or otherwise. But I don't think that's why he is notable. He is known for that; just as Biden is known for being a Zionist, but he is not notable for it. Also just as Trump is known to be pro-Hitler and pro-Putin. Hinkle is notable for having a social media following and an online presence; not for being pro-Putin/anti-Israel/etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the lead isn't ideally four paragraphs, have no idea where you got that idea from, it's based on the length of the article. At 2,545 2,416 words, the appropriate length is one or two paragraphs, bordering on two or three, hence two is clearly appropriate.

Why you think he's notable, or I, or Hinkle, is irrelevant here. It's about why RS believe he is notable. His notability (again, based on RS) is not for his social media following alone, but for spreading misinformation and disinformation with it, which is precisely why I had structured the lead differently to reflect this. It's not possible to sanitise his notability as simply his social media presence, without the controversies surrounding it, that would obviously be complete whitewashing and breach NPOV. It's refreshing to hear you agree that it's his social media presence that makes him notable to be honest, as this was previously how the lead was structured. This is why the change I made is the compromise here; specifying what he is known for, but avoiding his notability over social media controversies. For example, do you have a single reliable source documenting his notable social media following, without the controversies that surround it? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also the guideline of "identify the topic ... without being too specific" for the opening paragraph, which the second sentence does well; he's known for his views, but it doesn't specify how he is known for them, ie via social media. This information is saved for the second paragraph, to encourage further reading. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article was long enough to warrant four lede paragraphs. Anyway, Jordan Peterson is known for his support for Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israel-Hamas war, for his anti-Palestine views (namely his genocidal comment "finish them"), and for being frequently cited by Islamist media; I don't see that highlighted in his article, let alone in his opening paragraph. I frankly couldn't care less about a far-right wing idiot's WP page, but seeing how pro-western idiots are treated as human beings whose actual lives are highlighted, and anti-western idiots whose controversies are highlighted in hit pieces, this can't be NPOV in any way. This is being written from a western POV since Putin isn't a western ally; while Israel is a western ally; which frankly doesn't matter to anyone reading the biography of Hinkle. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your comparison to Peterson, that's comparing apples to oranges. For starters, Peterson has a well-documented career, so his notability naturally isn't going to be genocidal comments. Baring in mind the lead is based on weight of RS etc. As for NPOV, you might of misunderstood what this means, as it certainly doesn't mean neutrality: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Where are all the reliable sources from non-Western media to include for Hinkle? They are almost non-existent bar one, so of course there will be a Western POV from RS, and that must be reflected based on NPOV: fairly represents all the significant views. It'd be more relevant to consider why there aren't non-Western sources for Hinkle...

Personally, I think it's because Pro-Palestinians couldn't give a damn about self-serving far-right grifters that spread misinformation and disinformation. They do more harm than good for their cause, only helping to legitimise the conspiracy theories such as Pallywood. I also don't think Russia/Russians care for their mouthpieces, even if there were reliable sources to include. So which RS' are going to be talking positively about Hinkle? Virtually none. It should otherwise be obvious to the reader that nearly all Western Wikipedia articles will have a bias towards the West, based of use and weight of reliable sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Pro-Israelis either couldn't give a damn about self-serving far-right evangelicals either that spread misinformation, disinformation and legitimize religious conspiracy theories such as building the Third Temple. And no, it is not obvious to the reader that English WP articles have a bias towards the west. Western sources do not have to be biased by definition, nor are non-western sources. That's the thing, western sources have been recently increasingly under the impression that they have a monopoly on truth, epitome of which is the idea of community notes on X and sometimes the abuse of it. And now the possible banning of tiktok. And also labelling RT for example as state media, as if the NYT is that different. Anyway, aside from these rants, which are inappropriate here, my overarching point is that highlighting his foreign policy anti-western positions in the opening paragraph as if they are so important to his notability is misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also fyi, regarding the anti-Israel claim in the opening paragraph sourced by the Jewish Chronicle: "There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics." and also as previously mentioned about the Rolling Stones requiring attribution when talking about BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Have removed cites from first two sentences, as there is no need per MOS:LEADCITE. The second sentence is well-documented in the body (not just by JC), but by Bloomberg, Guardian, Mother Jones, The Times, Financial Times, and others. JC is attributed in the body, but will check for other contentious uses. Will work on adding more attribution where required as I notice it's missing for Mother Jones, and I imagine some other sources as well, hopefully that will help. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't change anything. Which RS that does not require attribution has described Hinkle as "anti-Israel"? Which RS has described Hinkle explicitly as "pro-Putin in the Ukrainian-Russian war"? This is definitely original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Coda says so, with marginally different words. Llll5032 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"anti-Israel content" in a newsletter isn't meeting the BLP standards really, nor why he is notable. The rest of the sources still require attribution and/or do not explicitly support the claim made. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Bloomberg, which is WP:GREL, also makes the anti-Israel claim. Llll5032 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

At some point WP:SATISFY and WP:STONEWALL should be considered here. RS clearly identifies Hinkle as anti-Israel, pandering to explain verifiable information shouldn't be necessary here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What does the Bloomberg source say as it is behind a paywall?

It is a strong word to call sources that are not considered reliable by WP to be RS; and that all of them making this explicit claim are required to be attributed. Not sure how the comment by one RS that he posts "anti-Israel content" makes him hold an "anti-Israel position" that is so prominent and so important to be included in the very first sentences about his entire life. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article at archive.org should have no paywall. Llll5032 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't load for some reason, please quote the relevant paragraph here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I added a refquote to the article. Llll5032 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

He "made the extraordinary claim that Israel had lied about the Oct. 7 attacks, citing the reporting of Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which swiftly debunked the lie", really? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"The controversial anti-Israeli influencer Jackson Hinkle" [3]. See Deutsche Welle in WP:RSP. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good, now we have a proper RS. Now after having flipped the internet trying to find one, the self-evident question is why is this so important to be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Flipped the internet? Read the body more like, that source was there all along 🙄 The reason it's in the MOS:OPENPARABIO is due to MOS: establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. If you hadn't noticed, most of the body/RS is based on his anti-Israel views. This is the more neutral version than "spreading misinformation and disinformation", which equally reflects the balance of reliable sources. Please read WP:NOTGETTINGIT. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of restoring the cites for claims that Makeandtoss has challenged, because per WP:LEADCITE, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Llll5032 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was there all along or not is irrelevant to the fact that we were discussing on the talk page the verifiability of this claim, where this RS was not presented. One RS does not "reflect that balance of RS" to the point of determining this is so notable to deserve mention in the opening paragraph. Ways to resolve disagreements on the talk page is through consensus, the next step would be an RFC; not an accusation of "not getting it". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not one RS, it's multiple as referenced in lead, not forgetting others such as ADL, Jewish Chronicle, Mother Jones and Rolling Stone. Those are the ones you "wanted" that don't "require" in-text attribution, even though I previously tried to explain that attribution is only for a source's claim that is independent from other sources (which isn't the case here). If you read WP:INTEXT "a source's words", it's singular not plural, ie not intended for when there are multiple sources. This is why you don't see "According to W, X, Y and Z" in other articles, because it's not necessary to attribute when multiple reliable sources are making the same statement.

My point of not getting it is that you are the only contributor that holds these viewpoints, while there is otherwise consensus (past and present) that Hinkle being anti-Israel is very much due. The next step for you would be an RfC if you still disagree with consensus. There has already been enough unnecessary changes to sources in an attempt to satisfy your concerns, we don't need to open an RfC for you. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• ADL: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."
• Jewish Chronicle: "The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics."
• Mother Jones: "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article."
• Rolling Stone: "Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution."

WP:STONEWALL "An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines."

WP:CON: consensus is addressing "editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"

WP:RFC: "Because Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, an RfC can act as a dispute resolution."

Consensus is reached by all editors while relying on RS and WP guidelines; consensus is not reached by ignoring them. Consensus is not reached by making inflammatory comments towards editors who are concerned that WP guidelines are being ignored to push a POV to the top of a BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a misinterpretation of WP:CON: Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable) nor is the result of a vote.. The compromise of removing the "spreading of misinformation and disinformation" from the WP:OPEN has already been made, as well as change of sources. I'm otherwise not disputing the content here. Hence my point is if you have a dispute, then sure, open an RfC to resolve the dispute you have with the content, as I'm pretty confident that "anti-Israel" will remain in the OPEN, mainly because it's far from biased or a POV when this is how Hinkle identifies. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It was you who claimed that consensus is reached through result of a vote by saying I was the only opposing editor vs two allegedly supportive ones. Please do not treat following WP guidelines in relation to opening paragraphs and BLPs as a compromise. It is mandatory to follow WP guidelines, not a choice. Since I am opposing the inclusion of this material and you are supporting it, the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability and open a RFC.

Douglas Murray (author) a racist political commentator doesn't have (rightly) being Islamophobic and anti-Palestine on his opening paragraph, but elsewhere in the lede and only for the former. Nor do Jordan Peterson, or Ben Shapiro, who are not only racist, but made genocidal statements, have any similar such designations in the entire lede, let alone in their opening paragraph. Again, each WP article must be treated on its own merits, but there is clearly no reason to ignore WP guidelines in this specific article just because they go against western foreign policy positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you raised questions at those articles? Llll5032 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above "(rightly)"; we should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions; and more particularly for people who have anti-western foreign policy positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite policy? Tommy Robinson is described as anti-Islam in the first sentence. There are plenty of controversial figures who are described based on their political positions in the first sentence. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Robinson's entire notability is based on being an anti-Islam campaigner as per the RS cited. Hinkle's notability centers on his social media presence. His pro-Russia and China positions are even more prominent feature of his than being anti-Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

So it's not policy then? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO: "The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." All we have here is one high quality RS: the DW source. I suggest you find similar multiple high quality RS, or open an RFC to seek other opinions if you want to insist on including this contentious material in the opening paragraph of a BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So, to clarify, we should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions is your opinion not policy then? Hard to get a straight answer here. Obviously there are 8+ reliable sources describing Hinkle as anti-Israel, but let's ignore them for now. I'm not insisting on having anti-Israel in the open, as it's already there, so again no dispute from me here. For clarification sake, I'll let you know if I have a dispute with the content, otherwise you're free to assume I don't, hope that clarifies things 👍CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions is my opinion based on the MOS:FIRSTBIO policy of reflecting the balance of reliable sources and the WP:BLP policy of higher standards for BLP. So far we have only one RS which is DW; the rest are either unreliable or need attribution; which clearly does not reflect balance of RS to be described in WP voice. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad we can come to an agreement that this is your opinion and not policy. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a dead end, so you're more than welcome to open an RFC to see other opinions about the insertion of this disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If third-party RS say it proportionately, being pro-China could be added. Llll5032 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

actor

Jackson Hinkle should also be described as an actor. he is credited with two roles, one is a short film where he plays a fictional character. see the IMDB profile here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13780348/ 69.113.236.26 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

His role in a single low budget ($100 USD) short film with the production quality of a homemade movie does not constitute the title of "actor". The fact that he has an IMDB page does not lend him anymore credibility than having an account on any publicly registerable social media platform would. 97.122.113.215 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian sources

Based on the sources template, thought it'd be worth looking at the Russian sources used in this article. While Russian sources can be reliable, given the issue with Russian state-owned media and propraganda, I thought it's worth taking a second look.

• https://inosmi.ru/20230728/zelenskiy-264680628.html (archive) - inoSMI is part of WP:RUSSIATODAY [4]
• https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2023920335-7oknx.html - Zvezda (TV channel) is owned by the Russian Ministry of Defence
• https://ria.ru/20231007/zhurnalist-1901096337.html (archive) - RIA Novosti - Russian state-owned media company
• https://smotrim.ru/video/2569438 - Rossiya 1 (Russia-1) is run by state-owned VGTRK [5]
• https://www.starhit.ru/novosti/amerikanskii-zhenikh-miss-rossii-anny-linnikovoi-priekhal-k-nei-i-priznalsya-v-lyubvi-rf-909864/ - is part of Hearst Shkulev Media and a private Russian company, though I get the impression it's an unreliable tabloid, clue: "Star Hit"
• https://56orb.ru/news/2023-12-16/miss-rossiya-orenburzhenka-anna-linnikova-porvala-s-amerikantsem-i-vozvraschaetsya-domoy-3130531 - couldn't find out any info about this media outlet, but based on the above, very likely to be unreliable/tabloid/both.

Going to go ahead and remove these sources and their content. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that was a good idea.

I just looked through the currently cited sources, and I don't see any in Russian. It appears that you have removed them all. Even if I missed one or two, you have removed nearly all of them. I don't think removing all sources from an article based on the language they are written in improves the article. On the contrary.

Furthermore, I'm concerned about your stated reasons for removing them.

The fact that a source is owned, in whole or in part, or influenced by a government is not a prima facie reason to remove its content. Wikipedia widely cites sources that are owned, controlled, or influenced by governments. And it should. State-owned & state-influenced media from around the world can and does contain valuable, factually accurate information that may be interesting or educational to readers. State media should definitely be attributed, so that readers are made aware of the source. But the source should not be removed simply because it is owned by a state.

Are the other two sources useful? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think the logic you present here is persuasive enough to warrant their complete removal.

The most important factor in answering the question "are they useful?" is the context in which Jackson Hinkle is discussed in the source. Are novel, contentious, factual claims being made about him? Are opinions about him being offered? To understand the context, one would have to read the article, translated if necessary, but ideally in the original Russian.

You make no mention of the content of the article, instead dismissing it out of hand because you personally don't know enough about the outlets to trust them. The solution to that is simple: if they are offering opinion commentary, you don't need to trust them, because you don't have to agree with an opinion for it to be notable. If they are making factual claims, you also don't need to trust them: attribute those claims to their publisher with in-text attribution, so that the reader is aware that these are claims, not solid facts.

I'm sorry if it feels like I am being harsh. I do not doubt your sincerity, good faith, or your desire to improve the article for readers.

Even more notably than this single editorial decision on your part, the complete lack of pushback against it from other editors over the past 3 weeks is a good illustration of the POV problems with this article. For that reason and others, I support the neutrality template remaining on this page until a much more thorough talk page discussion takes place. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that a source is owned, in whole or in part, or influenced by a government is not a prima facie reason to remove its content."

Yes. Thank you. I'd even go so far as to say that sources that are under constant surveillance and control by the apparatus of a state - in other words, like this very article - should not necessarily be removed. In any case, what citizen encyclopedist has enough time on their hands to do the policing? We just need to read between the lines. Lestrad (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)