Talk:Richard Hanania

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Richard Hanania argued for "more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people" in an essay that Elon Musk thought was interesting? Source: [1]
  ““I don’t have much hope that we’ll solve crime in any meaningful way,” Hanania tweeted while promoting the article. “It would require a revolution in our culture or form of government. We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people. Blacks won’t appreciate it, whites don’t have the stomach for it.” A short time later, the world’s richest man, and the owner of Twitter (since rebranded as “X”), replied to Hanania’s tweet. “Interesting,” Elon Musk wrote.”
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bad Idea Right?

Created by LonelyBoy2012 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Hanania; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: Just noting the QPQ has not been completed. A drive-by comment has been left without approval or an indication that article has been reviewed against the DYK criteria.--NØ 08:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Article is new enough and long enough. My concerns with this nomination are several. First, the article appears largely based on a quite negative profile of Hanania in the Huffington Post. It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided. Second, I have concerns with the hook. It also duly focuses on a negative aspect of living persons (Hanania and Musk). Additionally, the Huffington Post article quotes the original Hanania essay inaccurately and out of context. The hook is also misleading. Musk responded to Hanania's tweet. There's no indication that he read the essay, and I would hate to give off that impression. No QPQ required for this editor. Longhornsg (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Rejecting. As Longhorns notes, there are serious BLP issues here, both in general and as specifically relevant to DYK. It's a clear-cut case of a hook focusing on a negative aspect of a living person. The article is orange-level cleanup-tagged for its heavy reliance on a single source; said source is, as noted, a negative profile in a source not necessarily appropriate to make up most of a BLP. This cleanup tag alone would rule out DYK eligibility, and I'd say there are other relevant ones around neutrality and due weight. I'm not even convinced the case for an article is made here -- the coverage of the subject is overwhelmingly focused on something other than what the deprod claimed is his case for notability (NAUTHOR), and none of the NAUTHOR-relevant books...have articles, which would be a better focus if someone wanted to write about this guy for some reason. (Absolutely not the kind of guy I'd want to write about, but people have all sorts of hobbies.) These are serious issues, several of which Longhorns mentioned in the original review two weeks ago, and the nominator has been inactive for nearly a month and made no response. Vaticidalprophet 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Alt-right?

This copied from a User:Magnolia talk page:

Richard Hanania has been published by Greg Johnson, is an accolyte of Richard Spencer, and is interested in Jonathan Bowden

I think it´s perfectly fair to describe him as part of the Alt-Right. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

jonathan bowden is connected directly with greg johnson and richard spencer and should therefor be labelled as Altright. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Djflem (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

i will cite some of these. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources that say so in their own words should be cited. (Per WP:OR: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.") Llll5032 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Have reverted this edit until such time a proper source, if one appears, is added to article. Djflem (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

His body of work might indicate as such, a 2nd source needs to claim that:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150202063813/https://radixjournal.com/altright-archive/altright-archive/main/the-magazine/why-an-alternative-right-is-necessary
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110124213549/http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/richard-hoste/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110911110001/http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/archives/Hoste-Archives.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090625190923/http://hbdbooks.com/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20100209064414/http://hbdbooks.com/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20170106051058/http://www.radixjournal.com/altright-archive/?author=55480fe0e4b08ecb664fbf0c
• https://counter-currents.com/author/rhoste/
• https://www.takimag.com/contributor/richardhoste/165/

Djflem (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do this:

• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Hanania but might be something in there. Djflem (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Richard-Hanania-2146594302 And other body of work Djflem (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox I had for Hanania in my Sandbox

Richard Hanania
Nationality (legal)	American
Alma mater	University of Chicago law school(JD) University California, Los Angeles)
Known for	Rightwing activism

https://wealthyspy.com/richard-hanania/ StrongALPHA (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no way we would ever use that AI-generated SEO glurge. Nate • (chatter) 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Balance issues

While I personally consider Richard Hanania to be a contemptible lout, this article seems almost comically disproportionate in its coverage. There are eighteen inline references to a single piece; we are practically bleeding it dry. Over half of the "career" section (1,950 characters versus 1,816) is devoted to a summary of... a bunch of blog comments he wrote pseudonymously fifteen years ago? This seems undue, seeing as virtually nobody saw or cared about his dumb blog posts from 2008, versus his writing as a pundit in recent years, where he's appeared on national networks and had millions of readers, et cetera. Again, his opinions are loathsome, but this seems rather out of line and potentially a walking BLP violation.

The fact that people in above sections are trawling RationalWiki for sources for this article is a serious red flag; can't we do better than this? jp×g 10:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Here https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/richard-hanania-racist-message.html is something you can work with. Djflem (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How would you suggest recasting the article since most of the coverage and much of notability comes from being a partially rehabilitated racist? Djflem (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'd assume that he has more coverage than about just this incident, but if it's really the case that the only source talking about a person is doing so in conjunction with a single incident, it would seem to me to suggest we might not be able to write a useful article about them. jp×g 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, have you followed up on that assumption? If that is the coverage than that the coverage, which is satisfactory to satisfy GNG. Rather than tag the article as having a POV, please provide those sources that have something else to say about them. Which SINGLE incident are you referring to? Djflem (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to read my comments in this section if you are confused about what I'm referring to. jp×g 23:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Which single incident are you referring to? Which other sources are you providing? Your comments have yet to explain your claims. Djflem (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you be specific about the BLP violations you are suggesting? Djflem (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:G10, for one; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style is fairly clear about the need for articles to be written in a way that is proportionate to the notable goings-on and doings-on of the people they describe. I don't think anyone disagrees that Richard Hanania is a tool, but this article is outrageous. Take, for example, the first sentence of the "early life and education" section:

Hanania grew up in Oak Lawn, Illinois.[1] As a teenager, he worked at several fast food restaurants, where he struggled to keep up with his co-workers; he explained this by writing, "There are a lot of high IQ people who simply CAN’T do manual labor".[1]

That's the whole paragraph — about the tier of writing I would expect from Encyclopedia Dramatica. This is what we're going to defend as being proportionate and balanced? jp×g 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is what is attributable to reliable sources. Do you have other reliable sources to flesh out the paragraph? Djflem (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the only source of information about some guy's dick is that the Huffington Post said it was small, we just don't mention his dick in his BLP. We are not obliged to keep it in for lack of point-by-point RS debunkings. There's not really an encyclopedic need to mention this, especially if the only thing we can say about it is that he made some stupid cringe post about it on Twitter decades later and then the Huffington post quoted the cringe post. jp×g 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What other BLP violations can you identify? Djflem (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Here [2] is the justification article, which seems to support your position. Maybe you can do something with it? Djflem (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Quillete is never to be used as a source, and it's the source writing about themselves. Nate • (chatter) 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RSP is not a policy, or even a guideline, and even if it were, that's not what it says about this source: Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. If we are citing the subject of an article writing about themselves, this seems like an obvious example of the specific thing mentioned ("for an attributed opinion"). jp×g 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RSP summarises broad general consensus. You can claim "that's not policy," but it documents our consensus on what are RSes per the WP:V policy. The Quillette link is not necessary to NPOV, and the RS quote is in fact preferable - because it summarises it. Note how when I removed the superfluous and self-aggrandising Quillette link, the substance of the article was completely unaffected. Your claim that we are somehow required to link Quillette because of WP:BLP seems simply bizarre. I've removed the superfluous and self-aggrandising link again - the RS is preferable as it contains the quote and is contextualised in an RS manner. You're going WP:1AM to defend this bad source, perhaps reconsider - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard: This claim is confusingly untrue; I do not understand how you could describe this situation as "one against many". In fact, it is the exact opposite: the reference was added by the article's creator on the 7th. You removed it on the 8th, Djflem re-added it on the 10th, you removed it again on the 10th, I reverted, you removed it a third time, Djflem wrote a completely different sentence citing the same source on the 11th, and you reverted a fourth time. That is to say, in this entire sequence, three people (including me) added the sentence, whereas one person (you) removed it four times. jp×g 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Djflem: That last batch of edits was good; thank you for cleaning up the rough edges I left. jp×g 08:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you are truly interested in balance then you would do the research and find the references to include the body of work here:https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Richard-Hanania-2146594302 Djflem (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Balance" doesn't require false balance. We don't pepper the article with known bad sources to try to make Hanania fans feel better. It's not clear that Hanania is actually very notable at all, but what we do put needs to be restricted to RSes. If this "feels" unbalanced to you, take it up with the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The editor’s note for justification of publishing an article by Hanania in light of the HuffPost revelations is very much a big part about the aftermath of that fallout and damage to reputation as well as chief editor’s position on rehabilitating racists. Belongs in article.Djflem (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree with the OP. The article was clearly written by people who hate the guy, I also hate the guy, but Wikipedia isn’t a venue for us to air our grievances. That’s what Twitter is for. Joeletaylor (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 

Nothing about current views, emphasis on past annonymoust comments

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

---

I'm the subject of this article. I posted things anonymously a long time ago that got no attention, and have a career under my own name, in which I've been published in the NYT, Washington Post, The Atlantic, and many other publications. The anonymous writings are clearly the focus on the piece.

By my search, I appear 14 times in New York Times articles. Only two are related to the news about my pseudonym, and only one of them makes me the focus of the piece. Those two articles get cited in the Wiki page, and there's nothing about any of my ideas that got coverage elsewhere in the paper, including my own op-eds. There is practically no discussion of my ideas at all in the piece, except when they can be tied to past anonymous writings. And there is nothing about more moderate stances, like being pro-immigration, and defending the MSM from conservative attacks.

I also went to the Washington Post and searched for my name. Found two articles by me, nothing about the pseudonym controversy.

If I'm not important enough to have an in-depth treatment of my ideas, fine. But it's very weird to ignore my entire career which has gotten a lot of mainstream coverage, and make the center of the piece about anonymous writings from the past.

Also, the article heavily implies I was cancelled from the University of Texas, which wasn't true. My fellowship expired that month, taking my name from the website was due at the time anyway. I don't know if it was a coincidence or whatever, but that's about the time it should've happened and may have been unrelated. Regardless, this article shouldn't give the impression I lost a job there.

Finally, if you want to include hostile quotes from me, why not positive ones too? Tyler Cowen: "You should all be getting Richard’s Substack. Of all the 'new thinkers' on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" See also Bryan Caplan's blog post "Hanania the wise." If you're going to include the negative comments, surely you shouldn't leave the reader with the impression that no one has ever said anything positive about me. RHanania23 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also add Steven Pinker called me one of the most interesting thinkers writing today: https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1427124793426382852. See also the blurbs on my book from Peter Thiel, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others. I'm not saying all this because I want to brag about how great I am, but if we're going to be relying on other people's opinions of me and citing their quotes, positive ones belong in there too. RHanania23 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Richard. It is good you refrain from editing your own article per WP:ASFAQ. Just be careful not to use another account to do so. It seems you are concerned about the WP:DUE weight of the article. Please read that linked section for more details.

As for controversy. Some editors may have seen the Huffpost profile and as a result, included that content here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. These editors may have no interest in you otherwise and there is no requirement for them to seek out positive reporting on you. Controversies and criticism of you is fine so long as it is attributed to the source WP:INTEXT, rather than put in WP:WIKIVOICE. It should be done in a dispassionate way "X said X about Hanania" is fine, whereas "Hanania is X" is not. If you would like more details, see WP:NPOV on 'neutral point of view'. Whether or not the significant focus on your past is WP:BALANCED has been brought up by other editors on the talk page, e.g. "It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided" – so I guess some of it could be trimmed down. Also see WP:NOCRIT

We can include any secondary/independent coverage/remarks about you that are published in reliable sources. Twitter, blogs etc are generally to be avoided per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:TWITTER. So Wiki would need some coverage of you in secondary source outlets (e.g. news outlets, books, academic articles). If Pinker had written a positive blurb about you within an article, that would be acceptable, but a tweet is to be avoided (except for basic statement of fact, e.g. one's own date of birth). As you note, The Washington Post articles about you: those are perfectly good sources. These should generally be WP:INDEPENDENT sources (i.e. written by others) but your own writing in reliable outlets is often fine for a WP:BLP on establishing your views against an a secondary source WP:RS/QUOTE. If you have any sources you think are missing, link them below and editors can use them. But avoid the blogs/self published stuff. In particular, articles that cover your views, ideas and arguments are going to be the most useful for a Wikipedia article. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Your supposed "disavowal" should be taken with a massive grain of salt. You've been quoted as making statements that are frankly, blatantly racist as recently as this year. How can you defend a statement like We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people., which you made on the 14 May this year, [3] with a straight face? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:TALKNO your comment should be withdrawn: Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it. Various other users have already discussed the balance on the article, see the comments from experienced users here. The page failed nomination for 'did you know' because it relies too heavily on a source about a 15 year old drama. This isn't a courtroom and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not his disavowal was genuine. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well RHanania23 is complaining about how all this is old drama and that he's completely changed, and then all of the sources cited in the article are going on about how he hasn't really changed at all. I don't see how that's WP:NOTFORUM. We are not here to write hagiographies at the subjects request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You asking Hanania to explain random tweets is WP:NOTFORUM as it has nothing to do with sources. "We are not here to write hagiographies at the subjects request" – I have already explained to Hanania how Wikipedia is written using secondary and independent sources. He did the right thing per WP:ASFAQ. It might be useful to also see WP:NOBITING. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not like it's just a random quote, it's specifically mentioned in news sources like Inside Higher Ed [4] coverage of Hanaia as an example of his controversial views. The question was more rhetorical rather than specifically asking Hanania to justify his comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If RHanania23 is the real Hanania then if he is going to continue to post here then he may need to confirm his identity privately to the WMF. His identical post also appears on another Wiki [5], "Nothing about current views, emphasis on past annonymoust comments". This may be the real Hanania, it may be impersonation or it may be trolling. There needs to be confirmation to see what is really going on here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

RHanania23 is now softlocked until he proves his identity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, your continued attempts to put in trivial details about tweets in the lead are not suitable per WP:MOSLEAD which only suggests coverage of 'significant controversies'. Putting in statements like "Hanania did not deny the claim" is WP:EXCESSDETAIL and simply poorly written. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia. Given the large number of comments from users here (who are not particularly enthusiastic about the subject either) who see this page as putting comically disproportionate focus on controversy, you'd better gain consensus first. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is good sourcing [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and many others that all say that Richard Hanania (as of 2023) is still making racist statements. You are censoring this from the lead. The claim "Hanania has disavowed these views", is only part of what the sources say, and none of the sources believe him. Like I said he is still making racist statements according to the sources. A more neutral lead would be something more like this [11] which at least includes the line "Though other have accused him of continuing to make racist statements". Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with PG. It's clearly due to include some kind of wording regarding his recent statements, and to present his disavowal as some kind of clean slate is disingenuous given what sources say. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not about the “sourcing”, it’s about MOS:LEAD and ‘significant controversies’. He is disavowing claims that whites are inherently superior, and his prior support for eugenics. WP:CONTENTIOUS is quite clear that terms like ‘racist’ require attribution to the source, so putting in a bunch of arguments that he is still racist for talking about race and crime won’t cut it. Writing about race and crime is not a ‘significant controversy’ the way eugenics/supremacy is. This is all fine in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added another sentence to reach a middle ground here, at least it is attributed. Not sure if it is due though… might ask on a noticeboard later. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He tried the same thing at rationalwiki literally copypasting the same text. (see the collapsed section at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Hanania). Over there he started being battlegroundy though. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a troll, not Hanania. They wrote on RationalWiki: who else edited my page. I have been lifting weights in my local gym. I am not a man to mess with. I have been reliably informed this article was written by a bald antifa loser. I am not wearing a wig and have a full set of hair despite I am nearly in my 40s Zenomonoz (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What do current RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This [[12]] "Trojan horse for white supremacy" Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is also this source in The Atlantic The Allure of Racist Pseudoscience which is currently not on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I also note (and this may well violate NPOV ) that the lede puts these views in the past tense, and does not say (which RS do) that he still holds them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead is getting worse and worse, there is now a "target of a cancellation effort" claim in the lead, so we can mention that but not the fact he still holds racist views. There is an attempt to censor any mention of his recent racist views in the lead even though many RS mention it. There is obviously a false balance in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It was Llll5032 who put that in there. I have since trimmed it back to a simpler one since nobody is happy with it. I am also going to close this discussion as it was started by a now soft blocked account that appears to have been a troll per RationalWiki. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (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-washing and meat-puppetry

This Wikipedia article has been advertised by Hanania on Twitter (now X) [13] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. The agenda here is to remove sources from the lead. We now have accounts who have never edited this article before white-washing the lead [14]. Page protection may be useful here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

page has been heavily biased against Hanania. violating BLP, NPOV policies.

it has been argued that randomly editors here just knew about the HuffPost article and incidentally gave 75% undue weight to this piece. more editors knowing and editing would merely make this article from 90% anti Hanania collection to more like 60% anti Hanania / 40% encyclopedia Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Has it, by who and where? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be collating RS sources that aren't a copy of the HuffPost piece. give me time Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My mistake by editors I assumed you meant Wikipedia editors, that is how wp:consensus is built. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We have not yet reached any consensus about the page balance. let's keep new edits to only after broad consensus is reached Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, then lets seem some suggestions of the content we can add (based on RS) that we can use to balance this. Becaiue we have to go by what RS say, and it seems to be we use a lot more than one source. Slatersteven (talk)

If you check the old lead there were no issues [15], the last edits on this article were 5 days before this recent drama. On 28 October YechezkelZilber within an hour of Hanania's complaints about this article started white-washing the lead. YechezkelZilber is saying a consensus needs to be reached before any of these sources are to be included in the lead but this is clearly playing unfair as they were already in the lead for a long time and there have been conservations on this talk-page. There were no issues for the lead of the article until this editor started removing these sources. As listed above we have many RS documenting Hanania's racist statements (as of 2023). There is no reason to remove all these sources from the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, so we need RS to contest the claim his views have not changed, and add that for balance. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with that and there is good RS for the claim his views have not changed (in total we have about 6 sources for this). This issue has been raised at WP:FTN WP:BLPN. I think we need input from other editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If RS are not taking the disavowal at face value, then it requires some qualification to be in Wikivoice. User:Zenomonoz, your edits removed some of those qualifying factors [16][17], perhaps inadvertently; can you address the issue raised directly above my comment, by PsychologistGuy? Llll5032 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, "there is good RS for the claim his views have not changed" seems questionable. Clearly, he isn't writing in favour of forced sterilisation anymore, so his views have changed. Public figures disavow their old misdeeds all the time, and many people are not happy with their disavowals/apologies. Questioning of an apology/disavowal isn't worth mentioning in the lead. It can be put in the body if attributed, and should probably be clear about why they think he is still a racist using examples: some argue that his discussions of race and crime are racist. But per WP:LABEL it is best practice to always attribute any value-laden labels. Some of the things Hanania wrote were clearly reprehensible, but it feels like a lot of editors are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

more RS links

https://stanfordreview.org/how-did-everything-get-so-liberal/ Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to use this for? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Tyler Cowen in Marginal Revolution

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/the-weirdness-of-government-variation-in-covid-19-responses.html

"Of all the “new thinkers” on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So, what do you want to add, What do you want to use these to say? Random links are pointless, unless they are being cited for something. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

this is a different perspective on Hanania. that's all.

reading the current version one can feel that much of what RH is about is what the HuffPost + 2 following pieces found about his 2010 blogging.

which is bizzare.

I'm showing various sources having a perspective about him as a writer, thinker, option holder etc. this is distinct from the current picture of the entry which doesn't seem to fit the reality as I have seen it Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

in greater detail over the recent few ye Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)ars

OK I may be bludgeoning, so my last comment on this subject for a bit, what do they say we do not already say? Propose an addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ross Durant in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/opinion/conservative-mainstream-media.html Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is odd behaviour, you seem desperate to try and find any old source that is favourable to Hanania. I am not sure how either of these sources help your cause. The nytimes link you cite [18] refers to Hanania only twice in one paragraph. As Slatersteven says you must point out what this can be used for. I don't see how this will improve the article. You have not presented any good RS so far that can be used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

this is tricky. I fully understand the RS thing.

I've been writing Wikipedia in two languages for 18 years. and I'm familiar with situations where I know what's going on, but how do you show it?

there has been various article covering Hanania views and essays on various subjects. or his own essays published in multiple RS. but are those articles strictly about Hanania? it's mixed.

This isn't a dilemma about facts, but about whether every known fact can precisely be pinpointed to a "RS". which is why I'm bringing various pieces cinema his views or about him Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

two RH pieces covered in this Washington Post piece

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/30/cheer-up-conservatives-liberals-feel-just-miserable-you-do/ Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

another WP piece discussing RH views.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/04/lesson-election-democrats-spend-too-much-time-institutions-not-enough-voters/ Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This washingtonpost article you cite [19] has 3 small lines about Hanania which describes two of his substack posts as "interesting", that was it. How will that improve his Wikipedia article? You obviously do not understand how this website works. None of the sources you have listed are strictly about Hanania nor do they give us any useful biographical information. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

I don't think it's necessary to mention a 2008-2012 controversy in TWO paragraphs in the lead. This controversy is covered in one section and is more suitably covered in one paragraph in the intro MOS:LEAD to keep things chronological.

Likewise, the use of three (?) different quotes in the lead seems excessive: editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Adding in a quote about a ""target of a cancellation effort" seems needless. The earlier comments on this talk page, which precede all of this increased editing activity already had concerns about the weight placed on his prior blog writing controversy. The simplest and most suitable thing to do is simply write this like an encyclopaedia. Brief mention of the most significant controversy, and the detail can be read in the body.

Also, keep in mind this article failed a nomination for "Did You Know?" partly because it "unduly focused" on the Hoste controversy. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Large parts of those additions were made by User:SparklyNights and one by User:Slatersteven, so I am tagging them for this discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, this undo should have read 'second sentence'. I am not opposed to rewriting the lead, but "whose writing has been described as racist" seems comical in the second sentence. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe to you, but not to the four reliable sources. And apparently not to the other editors who have weighed in, both here and at FTN. Time to recognize when you are WP:1AM. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the pre-existing comments on the talk page, particularly the failed nomination for DYK, I don't think this is "one against many" at all. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, what did you think of this version, which I reverted? Zenomonoz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

what we have now looks good [[20]] we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"referred to Black people as animals" in lead

Generalrelative, putting "others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism, pointing to a 2023 social-media post that referred to Black people as animals" in the lead seems inappropriate. The tweet does not refer to black people. Hanania appears to be arguing that violent criminals are "animals" no matter how they dress. In addition, the sentence you added which says "his writing has been described as overtly racist" already shows that sources call him a racist, so the questioning is unnecessary. In fact, the old format of the lead was better because it was chronological, thus the questioning of the disavowal followed it by acknowledging some of his recent writing has been labelled as racist. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What do the secondary sources say? Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Writing "though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism" is WP:EDITORIAL. Did Hanania "disavow racism"? Or did he disavow his past writing? The sentence before says he disavowed his previous writing. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/QUOTE: The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted ... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reporting what the secondary source said is not editorializing, and the addition isn't a direct quote so WP:RS/QUOTE is irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, think you have misinterpreted me. I didn't say using the tweet was editorialising. I was expressing that it's wrong to say he "disavowed racism". He disavowed his old blog posts, so it's strange to follow that with though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism. It should probably say "though others have highlighted that Hanania still makes racist statements" or something of the like? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ohh and we do not say he disavowed racism, we say that others have said that despite disavowing his old comments he has in fact not disavowed his racist views. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extreme bias

I am more interested in the value of Wikipedia than in Hanania. Being a regular user of science and culture Wikipedia, I appreciate the high-quality factual coverage most articles provide. This is the first time I looked at a page for a political writer and am shocked at the extreme bias in this article. I tried to edit it to give it a slight level of balance, but the edits were removed right away. Wikipedia should just remove this article completely. As it stands, it is just a defamatory diatribe not comparable to normal articles. Infinite Geometry (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. When they are very critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. We don't try to strike some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Twitter controversy

Should we add a paragraph about a controversy on Twitter where he asked whether or not it should be allowed for Jeffrey Epstein to pay 10 million dollars to "have sex with a 14-year old girl?" CerealContainer (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any media coverage? If it's just a random controversy confined to Twitter it can be just ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It has 36 million views on Twitter and there's a few online news websites covering it. CerealContainer (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done a bit of googling and have not found any RS coverage so far, only reddit posts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

NO, not even if RS covers it. Not everything he says is worthy of inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if RS covered it, we basically would have to. But I don't see any indication they have as of yet, nor that they're going to. Loki (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Dumb Twitter "controversies" aren't notable, generally. Jazi Zilber (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually we would not as policy is clear, just because it can be verified does not mean we should include it, wp:undue comes into it for a start. THis article will become unwieldy if we include every bit of gob shiting in twitter. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No evidence he gave up his far-right views

I added a source on his politics from last year linking him to the New Right.

• Zack Beauchamp. How the right’s radical thinkers are coping with the midterms. Vice. November 22, 2022.

The article quotes a comment Hanania made as recent as last year saying: "[I]f I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post." The idea he renounced his fascist and right-wing authoritarian views is laughable.2A00:23C6:C022:C701:904E:8571:793:B0EA (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Source doesn't support for "right-wing" claim in first sentence

Basically the title, the article doesn't say that Hanania is right-wing. We should either get a better source or remove it. 212.116.83.55 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We have lots of better sources all around the page. The next three sources all verify "right-wing", one in the title. Loki (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No they don’t *verify* it, they assert it. Unless one’s definition of “right-wing” is literally everyone right of center who is not Susan Collins… 2601:582:8100:EA10:EC2E:2FB2:2849:3F2A (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Asserting it is enough for Wikipedia's purposes. See WP:V. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)