Talk:Jack Posobiec/Archive 1

Removal of reliably sourced content
Several editors, including, have been removing content supported by reliable sources in line with our verifiability policy. If you're going to persist, please provide your explanation here. Note that Posobiec's tweets and comments to the media are not reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that the source you keep citing is considered reliable, but don't we need to exercise some kind of common sense about the scope to which their claims are reliable? This whole system by which some sources are declared "reliable" is pretty arbitrary it seems. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept you're alluding to is in our reliable sources guideline: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. However, the content I'm talking about in this particular thread was not sourced to CJR. Rather, it was sourced to a variety of other reputable outlets such as The New York Times, Snopes, and BuzzFeed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

August 14 2017 Trump tweets
Trump tweeted and then deleted tweets referencing him. Wikipietime (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies list is clearly against BLP
The list of controversies is clearly a violation of BLP. Has the editor who made that list been blocked? They should be. I notice that Volunteer Marek (VM), an established Wikipedia is active on this article, so I request his/her assistance in helping get this article in accordance with the BLP policy. VM is known as an extremely fair and balanced editor who never edits with bias or an agenda. 152.130.15.30 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't been blocked. How specifically does the list violate our BLP policy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon further review it appears you're citing our BLP policy to edit war and say that reliable sources such as Snopes.com, Buzzfeed, and Daily Beast are unreliable blogs. This is incorrect; there is broad consensus across the project that all three of those outlets are generally reliable. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines and stop edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable Activities?
''Posobiec organized a "Rally Against Political Violence" in Washington, D.C. on June 25, 2017 that drew a sparse crowd. Richard Spencer, another alt-right figure, ridiculed the event and called it "pathetic".[20]''

How is this notable? If I arrange a sparsely attended rally to blow up the moon, does that meet a standard of notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.113.113 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * He organized it and it was covered in the reliable news media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy day - link bundling and citation maintenance!
I just went through a bunch of links fixed some bare URLs and bundled some links (rather than reducing number of citations) to reduce citekill. People should check my markup edits as they are only as accurate and good as one would expect from an unpaid volunteer from a totally unrelated industry. Thanks, peace Edaham (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the work I did, it appears that while using the reFill tool, cites 7 and 17 were altered. I'm checking those now. Edaham (talk)

notable activities section
This has a nice sounding title but its basically reading as a wp:trivia section. It could be rewritten as proper text rather than a bullet-ed list. Its current format also kind of makes it look like a finger pointing section/shit list, which is only likely to encourage drive by IPs to tag or remove which ever line they don't like. Edaham (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If there were a way to turn it into paragraph form I would support that, but only if it read cohesively. I haven't figured out a way to do that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support - I'm having a look at it. I've added the trivia tag to encourage other editors to think about it. I can suggest some sub headings for paragraph titles based on what I've read.


 * Online activities is one.
 * Public demonstrations is another
 * Social networking could be a third
 * If we can agree on some rough categories the task of writing about each one in chronological order using the existing sources seems relatively simple.
 * additionally I hope that this approach will deter the driveby tagging of the article with generic NPOV banners, as I think the issues on this page are more MOS related. Edaham (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not really trivia though. It would be better to write it in paragraph form but that's a different sort of problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I get that it isn't trivia, but it is miscellany, a guideline for which is included in the trivia template, so this template was a closest fit. In any case I'm actively rewriting it so hopefully it won't stay there long.
 * I totally get what you mean though, so I've swapped it for the prose template.
 * Edaham (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, prose is a more appropriate tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some feedback on Edaham's ideas. First, I don't like micro-subsections. There isn't enough content here (yet) to justify subheadings, so I suggest we handle this with paragraphs that can include introductory sentences. Second, I could see pinching off a paragraph on public demonstrations (Shakespeare, Lenin, Rally Against Political Violence). We'd still have a large number of things falling into "online activities," which would be a challenge to present in prose. Third, I don't know what the distinction would be between "online activities" and "social networking."
 * Here's another possible categorization scheme: public demonstrations, pro-Trump activism, falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Perhaps that would cover most of the items, and any leftovers could be put in a miscellany paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Posobiec's tweet about the alt-right being cancer
This is something of a follow-up on the discussions "Alt-right" and "Proposed changes" above. It has been said by multiple contributors that Posobiec denies being alt-right. The question is how to handle this (if at all). Here is Posobiec's recent tweet in which he wrote: "The alt right is cancer. I've always been a conservative Republican. That's why I'm in the New Right." Is that even a denial, and if it is, does it merit inclusion? Here is a HuffPost article that covers Posobiec's tweet and takes a skeptical stance on some folks' recent efforts to distance themselves from Richard Spencer and others in the alt-right movement. There appears to be a semantic war going on among prominent figures in the alt-right/alt-lite/new right/whatever world. I question whether we should be wading into the world of what appears to be political self-branding, and whether it's undue for this article. I'll also note that quite a number of reliable sources have described Posobiec as "alt-right" since he tweeted that the alt-right was cancer, without mentioning anything about that. Overall I land somewhat in favor of not mentioning anything about Posobiec's tweet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The RFC above is showing many instead call him right-wing, and he calls himself new-right. The WP:LABEL guide says that insult should be attributed and in due WP:WEIGHT; and WP:BLP says to be a bit more tender about such pejoratives.  Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Off-topic. This discussion is about how to handle Posobiec's tweet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman - Skip the tweet. This being his BLP article, second-party articles mentioning him as right-wing or that he calls himself new-right seem a reasonable fit, as the RFC above is discussing.  The tweet supports that he calls himself new right, but there are better sources for that and first-party is generally not favored.  The tweet and the article re Richard Spencer I think you can ignore for this article.  They simply seem not much about Jack Prosobiec and his life, so not fitting for a BLP.   A tweet or HuffPo article about alt-right might be candidate for the Alt-right article, but I doubt either of these is significant enough WP:WEIGHT for there.   Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I believe that a couple changes need to be made to the article.

1. Posobiec denounced the alt-right on Twitter, claiming that he is not part of the movement but rather of the alt-lite or New Right. See https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/897499256746942464, along with the article of Paul Joseph Watson. The article's lede states that he has denounced the alt-right and has aligned himself with the new right. The proposition that he is alt-right should be changed to the one I made earlier, stating that he has been described as alt-right by multiple sources, but has denounced it and identifies as something else. Keeping a claim that is disputed by the subject of the article itself fails NPOV.

2. In the notable activities section of the article, a claim is made that Posobiec "led a campaign to discredit anti-Trump protesters by planting a "Rape Melania" sign. The source cited either needs to be improved, modified to state that there are allegations that he did such a thing, or the claim should be removed altogether. See https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/inside-the-alt-rights-campaign-to-smear-trump-protesters-as?utm_term=.kgrE2dmY4#.ykbQJ7xDr . It is a BuzzFeed article which I wouldn't consider a reliable source along with many others at Wikipedia. The evidence BuzzFeed provides are screenshots with his name attached to it, which anyone can do. It should be noted however, that the only other source that is somewhat reputable is the Daily Beast who reported on this, seen here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/jack-posobiec-pizzagate-and-seth-rich-conspiracy-theorist-has-top-secret-security-clearance. Posobiec also denied the claims seen here: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/798697704469708802

There are several issues with the article that I think need to be addressed. This article is bordering on an almost wholly negative BLP that needs major source improvement. 60% of the article is a list of his controversial activities and it makes the article look almost like an attack page. For now, I will not revert the edits I proposed back, but I will tag the article while consensus is generated on how to proceed.  CatcherStorm    talk   20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (I) Conspiracy theorists deny that they are conspiracy theorists. That doesn't make RS descriptions of them null and void. We can note that Posobiec rejects that he's alt-right, but we'll continue to describe him as alt-right in Wikivoice because that's what the RS say. (II) If both Buzzfeed and Daily Beast report this, then it's good enough for inclusion in the article, unless other RS contradict it. Posobiec himself is a liar and conspiracy theorist, so his word on this does not make those sources wrong. Again, you can note that Posobiec denies the stories, but that's it. (SUMMARY) If someone's sole claim to prominence is being a controversial conspiracy theorist and shit-stirrer, it's no wonder that his whole Wiki article is full of controversies and idiocy. That's after all, the only reason any RS cover him. If there's anything else about him that RS find noteworthy, please add it to the article. Don't give the article a badge of shame just because the individual in question has never done anything covered by RS that wasn't deeply embarrassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking this kind of stance on an article- that he is a "shit-stirrer" and a "liar" fails WP:NPOV. If Posobiec rejects that he's alt-right, and it's worthy to note it, then it is also worthy to note the fact that he denies the accusations made against him about the rape Melania sign, and I have provided evidence that he denies it.  CatcherStorm    talk   21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree on all counts. Where to begin...
 * Procedurally, you shouldn't have started an RfC without discussing the matter first. And the RfC isn't properly formed either, as it's nothing close to a neutral, concise statement of the issue along the lines of "Should we change A to B?" May I suggest that you remove the RfC tag and we discuss this before you blast a wider group?
 * The tags are wildly excessive. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the alt-right label, then place a pov-inline tag after that label. If you have a problem with the Buzzfeed source for the Rape Melania bullet, then place an rs tag after that sentence. But these article level tags that have little or nothing to do with the dispute are inappropriate.
 * Regarding the alt-right label, our neutrality policy is pretty clear that the goal is to reflect reliable sources. The Columbia Journalism Review and ABC News are reliable sources. Jack Posobiec's tweets are not. The reliable sources say that Posobiec is alt-right, without contradiction. I might be be open to including something saying that Posobiec disputes the label, but your proposed edit attempts to change the article to reflect the subject's wishes rather than faithfully summarizing the reliable sources' conclusions. That's contrary to the basic principles of Wikipedia.
 * Regarding Rape Melania, there's pretty broad consensus at WP:RSN and elsewhere that BuzzFeed is generally reliable these days for politics content. I know there was an article written in CJR about how BuzzFeed has really beefed up its editorial staff and has joined the big boys. You can't just say "I wouldn't consider BuzzFeed to be unreliable." What is the basis for your belief?
 * Regarding your contention of an overall attack-page feel, as I did most of the research for this page I can honestly say that it's simply a reflection of the fact that most of the reliably secondary sources only contain coverage that might be seen as negative. If you can find sources that include more "positive" content then I will gladly add it (or you should feel free to add it yourself).
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. I decided to be bold and make some corrections I felt were necessary to ensure a quality article, but you told me to discuss it on the talk page, which I have done so now. Regarding the tags, I can take away at the most two but they are all issues reflecting the state of the article.


 * Regarding the alt-right label, I concur that should reliable sources deem Posobiec as alt-right, it should be noted. However, I also believe that it should be noted that Posobiec disputes the claims, as the lede of Paul Joseph Watson does.


 * Pertaining to my belief that BuzzFeed isn't a reliable source for a Wikipedia article, especially when it is negative coverage a biography of a living person, it is clear to anyone taking a closer look at BuzzFeed that they are definitely nowhere near on par (for now) with CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo and others. They are a viral media company that exists to entertain people, not provide news coverage. See for yourself: http://www.buzzfeed.com/robynwilder/breast-milk-ice-cream, http://www.buzzfeed.com/caseygueren/clean-your-peen#.pf069jnl5Y, http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/things-conservatives-would-rather-do-than-watch-obamas-state, and http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamberger/which-ousted-arab-spring-ruler-are-you. They are more of a tabloid than a reliable news source that can be trusted to deliver news without bias. As for the BuzzFeed article itself, while it is very possible that Posobiec may have been involved in the claims, why do we consider a short article written by an amateur journalist at BuzzFeed to be a reliable source? I looked at the archive at WP:RSN and doesn't seem to be consensus as you claimed that BuzzFeed is RS. I found several dissenting viewpoints, such as the one found here.


 * The article simply needs some work. Even if I try to read it from a neutral viewpoint, it simply doesn't come off as neutral.  CatcherStorm    talk   23:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * On procedure: I asked you to discuss, not start an RfC. As for tags, I trimmed them down to reflect the concerns you've articulated.
 * On alt-right: I'm open to considering that, though I oppose the wording you previously proposed. Any wording should indicate that Posobiec is verifiably alt-right, just that he disputes that label.
 * On BuzzFeed: BuzzFeed is most definitely not a tabloid these days. Check out the dates on those articles--all from more than 2 years ago. BuzzFeed has changed a lot over the years. Beyond that, I think you understand aspects of our reliable sources guideline. Sources need not be biased. Sources need not be as reliable as CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NYT, and WaPo. The reliability of BuzzFeed in politics articles comes up from time to time. Yes there are consenting views, but consensus does not mean unanimity. In every such discussion I've been a part of, the consensus has always been that BuzzFeed is generally reliable. Your claim that the author was an amateur is verifiably false and not well-taken. Regardless, the source has been removed, so this issue is moot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove RfC there's nothing here on which to comment other than some vague wave at bunch of non-RS with no specifics as to how we are supposed to use them. RfC is a form of dispute mediation to aid with forming consensus. Please ensure that there is actually a dispute first before using it. Edaham (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edaham, what do you think about noting that Posobiec disputes the "alt-right" label? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's sourced then great. Ideally a secondary source reporting on his objections should be cited. If it's a PS i.e. him on a video on youtube or his website or something talking about himself, we'd be much more cautious. Both him and the source from which the text came should be attributed and the quotations taken kepd brief. WP:DUE would be the policy to consider in determining whether or not his objections carry merit. Edaham (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you please provide the sourcing for Posobiec's denial of the alt-right label? I've seen the tweet but now I can't find it. A reliable secondary source would be ideal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The tweet is still live, I can see it. As for another source I found a video of Posobiec denouncing the alt right and again saying he is a "conservative Republican". See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJ3CsNpHw0. Watch the first 40 seconds and then skip to 3:20.  CatcherStorm    talk   16:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CatcherStorm, we need a link to the tweet please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here it is: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/897499256746942464  CatcherStorm    talk   18:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue this issue in a dedicated thread below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There are no requirements to discuss something first before starting one (best practise yes, but not a requirement). I agree that the question could have been framed better though. Usually the best way to deal with sources that say someone is something the claim not to be is to present both sides. Something along the lines of "Prosobiec has been described by ......... as ..........., althouth he say he is ..........". Easy. This article is horrible by the way. The notable activities section needs to be completely rewritten into prose form and trimmed substantially. I can see why somene would see it as an attack piece. AIR corn (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "There are no requirements to discuss something first before starting one" <-- sure about that?

Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions.

RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system.


 * there are no requirements that you use a plunger to unblock your toilet... you'll look pretty weird trying to do it with a tooth brush though. Regarding prose form - article's been tagged and the problem is being worked on. You are so welcome to help. Edaham (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I have been commenting on RFC's for years (admittedly somewhat sporadically). As I said, while it is usually better to start the discussion locally, there is no rule (despite the the verbiage of policies and guidelines there are actually very few hard and fast rules here) requiring a discussion first. And I am helping. I responded to a request I saw on the BLP page and made a comment as an uninvolved person. This is the main purpose of RFC's, not to get editors to edit sub-par articles (although there is nothing stopping them doing so if they desire). AIR corn  (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Me joining in . I believe at the RSN it was determined that personal verified tweets could be RS for something small and personal. EG "I was born on Nov 3 not Nov 4", and "I am in a relationship but not engaged with Jack Daniels" not "Rogue One made a billion dollars on first opening night". I'll try and dig up a link for that
 * I don't mind the lack of discussion prior an RfC. Some topics are going to require (or are best with widespread community input), so first having an argument where both sides talk to a brick wall and everyone knows an RfC is going to be filed anyway is not necessary.
 * Buzzfeed is RS…most of the time. The NYT publishes a crossword and a gossip column daily, that doesn't make the entire publication non RS.
 * There is a dispute, one party wants to remove alt-right, and another party disagrees. I'll go ahead and dig up my non-policy crystal ball, and say that any discussion regarding the use of the term "alt-right", should have community input.
 * The Actual proposal text of the RfC could use a TL;DR to make it clearer for others, I find it clear and neutral enough. RfC Should stand. Thanks, and please ping me for prompt response, L3X1 (distænt write)  14:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear L3X1, I don't think anyone in this discussionis asking for the outright removal of the alt-right label--just to add in one way or another that Posobiec says he's not alt-right. And I'm not seeking consensus to strike the RfC, I was merely trying to educate CatcherStorm (I screwed up my very first RfC in a similar way) and ask them to withdraw it as a courtesy. I won't press the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - CatcherStorm is generally right to call for outside input and that this article is flawed in the first line and the appearance verging on an attack page.  Whether it could have been worked more smoothly seems secondary issue that rather than relevant to article edits.  For #1 - I think "is an American alt-right" fails WP:LABEL as it is not giving attribution nor is that widely used.  After a simple google, I see CNN and LA times use it prominently -- but not Washington Post, NBC, the Atlantic, Independent, and Washington Times.   Far better to err on the side of caution and use "right-wing".    For #2 - again attribution as something reported by might suit, although the WP:WEIGHT seems low and if larger media do not also mention it makes one wonder on the credibility.  Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not widely used? Would you like a list of sources that describe him as alt-right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman - It's not a clearly dominant usage as shown by the ones that do NOT use it, WP:LABEL is indicating one needs to google the other way. WP:BLP also says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" so an insult on the first line stated as if unambiguous fact or universal opinion is both contrary to guidance and a false portrayal of available sources.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has become the dominant usage, and no, it's not an insult or value-laden. We use these types of ideological/political descriptors all the time based on many fewer sources, in case you haven't noticed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * comment an RfC in which we use the talk page as a forum to discuss the nature of RfCs without applying either policy or reliable sources. Awesome. Loving the productivity. Shall we make a new template called template:metanotforum? Edaham (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree with proposed changes and with the general implication that the article has major problems. First, we can note his disagreement but have to go with the sources overall.  Second, Buzzfeed's reporting has improved recently, and WP:RSN has repeatedly said that it can't be simply ignored as a source; finding higher-quality sources would of course be good, but there's no support for simply removing or omitting something purely because they're the source - better sources exist, but their reporting does meet the bare standard that WP:RS requires.  (And if you disagree, taking that to WP:RSN is likely going to be more productive than an RFC.)  I'll note that it seems like a better source has already been found - again, this is a reason why it's better to discuss rather than leap straight to an RFC.  Third, I don't feel your general summary of the article is accurate.  Finally, this RFC is going to be mostly useless - it tries to cover far too much ground, and there hasn't been enough effort to resolve most of these issues via other channels.  Overly-broad RFCs like this are bad because they discourage compromise, discussion, and more reasonable dispute-resolution in favor of "this entire version has consensus, now we don't have to discuss it anymore".  (Consider - having made this broad RFC, what will you do if there's a general consensus against you?  Isn't it better to try and reach a compromise first before leaping straight to a !vote?  If nothing else, more low-key discussion can produce options that can later be included in an RFC - ones that are more likely to reach consensus because they'll have been hammered out a bit.)  RFCs are useful as a step towards resolving intractable disputes over specific things so discussion can move on to more productive areas rather than going in circles, but trying to cram every problem you have with an article into one giant RFC is unlikely to go anywhere useful. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yikes. (Comment:) Yes, I tend to agree that this is a very poorly approached RfC and that arguably it ought to be closed in the interest of paving the way for a more neutral statement of facts and a more concise, explicit, and cognizable question that the RfC respondents can respond to and form a clear consensus on--maybe a series of concise questions, but certainly not. With respect to Markbassett's reasoned arguments, which I do agree with in most regards, I don't think that the error of a clearly non-neutral presentation of the circumstances here (that may go against existing consensus, it seems?) is a small one. And that issue put aside, there's the matter of not making a simple proposal which stands a better chance of achieving clear consensus, one way or another.


 * I don't think our OP here was trying to game the system, but it does seem like maybe they don't have a huge amount of experience with the RfC process. And while Mark is absolutely correct that these deficiencies do not absolutely bar CatcherStorm from still raising these issues, it doesn't mean we have to leave this thread alive.  If he has the time, CatcherStorm should re-review the RfC guidelines, and take another crack here, or someone else familiar with the issue could, though it would be good to have CatcherStorm agree that they trust the other party to present the matter neutrally--that seems only fair given we'd be asking someone else to reframe the issue. In any event, I do think the argument for restarting discussion is strong.  On the other hand, you might take the utilitarian approach and say, well, since things don't seem to be going OP's way, even with the non-neutral statement, why not just let the arguments play out? I tend to think the arguments could be better organized here, though. S n o w  let's rap 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Please clarify your question. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural questions aside (I agree with most of what's said above about how to do RfCs properly), I think the concern raised in point no. 1 is legitimate, per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:ABOUTSELF. We cannot repeat (in WP's own voice) a claim that we know is inaccurate simply because it was published in an ostensibly and otherwise reliable source.  As to point no. 2, I don't know enough about the evidence to comment meaningfully.  These issues should be addressed separately, since there's doesn't seem to be a connection between them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding point no. 1, the RfC was misleading. See the discussion below ("Posobiec's tweet about the alt-right being cancer"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Hi all! I've noticed tags keep getting added to this article and then taken off again. I think there might be a bit of drive-by tagging going on. We can discuss whether or not the article needs these tags here. Regarding the NPOV issue, keep in mind that disputes and opinions among the notable people who constitute reliable sources do not have to be neutral. Wikipedia's neutrality is achieved not by balancing the views of sources, but by adhering to WP:DUE. Edaham (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think some folks misunderstand how our neutrality policy works. As best as I can tell, the article reflects every single reliable source I could find about the subject. No one has contended any reliable sources were excluded or not given their due weight (except possibly the alt-right issue being discussed above), and no one has identified any non-neutral wording. The fact that the reliable sources relay verifiable factual information that reflect poorly on Posobiec is not our problem--in fact, if we didn't relay this information then we would be non-neutral. The point of NPV is to fairly and neutrally summarize the reliable sources, not to compensate for them or emphasize some facts over others to make the subject look neither good nor bad. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Edaham - repeated removals indicate denialism or WP:EDITWAR, maybe folks fallen into WP:OWN. Following WP:NPOVD, a drive-by is when there's no TALK so this isn't one.  Seems good there was a RFC here to bring outside opinions in.   Markbassett (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag (diff); it's what the sources say. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Doxxing of Roy Moore accuser
The last item from "Notable activities" is assuming motives that Posobiec has not declared. It reads, "In November 2017, Posobiec encouraged his Twitter followers to target a woman at her workplace after she came forward with accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had attempted to have sex with her when she was 14 years old."

I'm aware that the Newsweek article does indeed claim that Posobiec encouraged his Twitter followers to target this woman. However, the only thing that we can say for certain, as can be determined from the screen shot of the tweet in the same article, is that Posobiec posted a photo of her, gave her name and her place of employment.

Yes, a reasonable person could assume that he did this intending to have his Twitter followers target her for harassment at her workplace. However, lacking words to the effect of, "Go ahead and call her boss at work," or some such, any motive you attach to Posobiec is simply speculation. All he did was post the photo, name and her place of employment. He didn't tell or encourage his Twitter followers to do anything.

Also, it should be noted that the tweet was soon taken down, presumably by Posobiec himself.

Anything posted on my talk page will be removed unread. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Newsweek article is quite specific. It says Posobiec "told his Twitter followers to target Corfman at her last known place of employment." Are you suggesting that Newsweek made this up? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018
Add additional sourced information, add photographs of subject. Goodbadnugly (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The edit semi-protected tag is for requests for specific changes, not for general feedback. If there is specific content, sources, or photographs you'd like added, please identify them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Something else to consider adding
The "Notable activities" section is absolutely awful, but if we're going to have it, this might be worth including. "In April 2017, Posobiec was attending an Antifa "Bloc Party" in Washington DC, when he was assaulted by an Antifa protester. George Washington University Police were on the scene instantly and Posobiec's assailant was arrested within ten seconds of the attack."

There are videos of this incident on YouTube. But this one is taken off Posobiec's own Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/856250305029300224

Anything posted to my talk page will be removed unread. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We would need a reliable source before adding this. A Youtube video and a Posobiec tweet aren't enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This entire section is nothing more than an attempt at character assassination. Are people really adding information about a Bumble account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.141 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In general we take our cue on what to report based on the reliable secondary sources. The Bumble story was actually reported on by many reliable outlets, including the cited ones (The Independent and BuzzFeed) as well as Gizmodo, New York magazine, Fast Company, the Stranger, the Observer, Forward, Newsweek, and the Washington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverts over description
Suman chowdhury 22, why did you revert me? R2 (bleep) 07:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion that he is an "internet troll" is certainly not from Neutral point of View. The earlier version presented the controversial matter in a neutral manner. Moreover the changes you made in your 3rd edit seems to prove that you want to conclude your POV that he "is a supporter of the slogan." The the previous version presented the point in a much neutral manner. It is always better to state "according to whom", instead of concluding. | Emblem of India.svg | স₰UMAN চ₢HOWDHURY Talk? 08:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These items merely reflect the cited, uncontradicted reliable sources. Please read them. R2 (bleep) 08:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You also removed content that was supported by reliable sources and talk page discussion. That's disruptive. R2 (bleep) 08:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To state that "the media reported it", is quite different that concluding & asserting right away that he "is" an Internet troll. The former seems to be a media perception, which is acceptable (as criticism) and the later seems to be "your" own view. I am a simple guy, not the "monster" you think me to be. So, kindly don't make it an issue of Edit-war. | Emblem of India.svg | স₰UMAN চ₢HOWDHURY Talk? 08:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed reliably sourced, extensively discussed content that Posobiec is alt-right. What's your explanation for that? R2 (bleep) 08:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Our neutrality policy says we shouldn't present reliably sourced facts as opinions. If reliable sources say the subject is X or Y, then we say the subject is X or Y. These sources are not "criticisms," and the cited sources are not opinion pieces. It's a verifiable fact that Posobiec is an internet troll. It's a verifiable fact that Posobiec is a conspiracy theorist. It's a verifiable fact that Posobiec supports the 1488 slogan. Do you dispute any of these statements? R2 (bleep) 08:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right redux
In case there's further dispute about whether Posobiec is verifiably alt-right, here's a sampling of reliable sources in addition to those currently cited in the article:. There are many more. R2 (bleep) 17:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Alt right"
Is there any evidence that this person has "alt right" views? The alt right is about establishing racially pure ethnostates, but all the sources seem to confirm that this person is pro-Trump, and Trump is certainly not alt right. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a number of reliable sources that describe Posobiec as alt-right, the most reliable probably being this one from CJR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That source just uses the term "alt-right" in passing. Is that really enough to determine someone's political ideology, when they haven't self-identified with any particular ideology? Ignoring the secondary sources for a moment, is there any evidence that this guy has expressed white nationalist views? Has he suggested creating an ethnically-pure state? I think it's reasonable to disregard sources that are just blatant opinion pieces in some situations. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right is a loaded term. Clicking through to the definition of "alt right", one sees that they are conservatives who are "white nationalists". Clicking through to "white nationalists, you see they are people who "seek to develop a white national identity" who take ideas from Nazism. While Posobiec might identify himself as alt-right, I'm certain his definition of "alt right" is not the Nazi definition offered by Wikipedia. Unless you're able to source quotes Posobiec has made that are racist or espouse white nationalism -- it is a highly libelous claim. Not much different than Hillary Clinton calling half of Trump supporters "xenophobic misogynist racist", her opinion doesn't make it true and linking to an article where she says this does not prove it to be a true claim. I'm not quite sure the best fix of this, but calling Posobiec a Nazi is libelous and outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.148.89.151 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see our verifiability policy. I'm not aware that Posobiec calls himself alt-right. But several reliable sources do. These are independent sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The link you provided already, the cjr.org one, groups Cernovich with Posobiec, as being both alt-right and a white nationalist. Cernovich says he is not https://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/31/is-mike-cernovich-part-of-the-alt-right/ where he states "First I’m not a white nationalist." and also "I’m even not part of the alt-right." That is what you considered to be the most-reliable, and yet it is disputed by the subject of the article. cjr.org is not considered neutral, as it pushes a liberal agenda against conservatives, where articles like this https://www.cjr.org/opinion/alternative_facts_trump_spicer_conway.php clearly outline their bias. "whoppers, untruths, lies—but casual falsehoods have been the hallmark of President Donald Trump’s young political career". Is that what you claim to be an "independent" source? Clearly it is not. The accuracy of your link is disputed. As stated above on this page, it is contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced from a biased publication, the subjects of whom (Cernovich) disagree with the classification -- and its hard to see how being called a Nazi (per wikipedia's own definition) isn't libelous. All this without a single sourced racist quote or opinions of Posobeic which would prove him to be a white supremacist, as this article is making him out to be. I'm not the only person concerned with this per AliceIngvild94 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.148.89.151 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CJR is just about the most reliable current events source that exists. Sources need not be unbiased to be reliable. In addition, the CJR article you're referring to is marked as an opinion source by David Uberti, i.e. it doesn't reflect CJR's position on anything. And no one is proposing called Posobiec a Nazi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CJR may be reliable overall, but I'd ask you to consider that this particular article is not reliable. It includes the claim that white nationalist Richard Spencer is a "Trump Advisor," which is false. To incorrectly claim a self-avowed neo-Nazi and the person most identified with the term "alt-right" is a Trump advisor demonstrates a deep lack of understanding of the facts regarding the alt-right. I would request thus that this source and its accompanying claim in the entry be removed. 50.235.46.218 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is exceedingly weird, thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it impugns significantly on the reliability of the source for the purpose it is being used (to say that Posobiec is alt-right), but I'd be interesting in hearing other contributors' comments on this particular issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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


 * ,, , , , , , ... should I keep going? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Posobiec has stated that he is "alt-lite", not "alt-right". The two movements do not get along with each other, from what I understand.  If I understand correctly, if someone declares themselves not to a certain label, then that is incorporated into their article according to the BLP policy.  Volunteer Marek, do you have any negative feelings or bias against this topic?  I'm AGF, but your comments seem a little contrary NPOV and BLP. 152.130.15.30 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you or someone else please provide a link for the proposition that Posobiec says he is not alt-right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and borderline libelous editorializing on the part of Wikipedia. Using secondary sources to describe a person's ideology or beliefs when they themselves have stated they do not have such beliefs is beyond indefensible, particularly adding that to the first line of the article. For example, CNN has said that Donald Trump is racist. Should Donald Trump's Wikipedia article begin by saying "Donald Trump is a racist who is the President of the United States?" Dr. Fleischman, you are exploiting a blind spot in the media in order to propagate disinformation. This is shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.231.131 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't stop you from feeling offended, but under our verifiability policy, we rely primarily on reliable independent secondary sources. If you have an issue with that, then I suggest you take it up at WT:V or WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wikipedia is stepping into libelous area. The site should refrain from labeling someone alt right. Unlock this article and take it down. Glenlivet81 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We follow what reliable sources say, and plenty say he's alt-right. See the latest discussion at the bottom of this page. R2 (bleep) 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019
Remove and replace term "alt-right" as politically biased and either incorrect or poorly defined and does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - better to use "conservative" or "right wing" Remove and replace term "internet troll" as politically biased and either incorrect or poorly defined and again does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - use a term that fit such as "political commentator" Remove term "conspiracy theorist" as biased and again does not accurately describe Jack Posobiec - again see "political commentator" Remove term "fake news" as biased and perhaps inaccurate in light of current events involving the restructuring of the main stream media Remove "debunked...high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring" as biased and perhaps inaccurate in light of current events involving Epstein Alb-davidt (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability, and each of these is supported by reliable, secondary sources (more than one, in most cases) and thus are verifiable. Removal of any of these from the article would require the existence of a clear consensus prior to implementation. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
Your Current Listing is politically biased. You should change your opening paragraph from: John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[2][3][4] internet troll[5][6][7] and conspiracy theorist[8] best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter. He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.[9] He has been retweeted by President Trump.[10] As of 2018, he was working as a correspondent for One America News Network, a conservative cable news television channel.[11] To: John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American author,[2] political commentator, journalist, and host for the cable news television channel One America News Network,[3] and was Washington Bureau Chief at Rebel Media. [4] Posobiec is a retired officer of the United States Navy. [5] Posobiec is known for his work with the 2016 election Citizens for Trump organization. [6] with linked references as follows [1] - [2] - [3] -  [4] -  [5] -  [6] -  The use of biased terms such as “alt-right, internet troll, conspiracy theorist, fake news” lead this entry to be an unreliable and biased source of information which is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. You should make changed to neutrally provide accurate information rather than biased opinions of the character of the subject Alb-davidt (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) David Theis
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Debunked conspiracy theories, like Pizzagate, the Seth Rich thing, etc., are formed in such a way that their followers can rush to point to anything that supports them, no matter how flimsy, while totally ignoring any and all complications. There is always an out. There is always some random detail they can point to and pretend they were right all along. All the many, many errors can be ignored. The glaring failures don't need to be mentioned, because that's just "vacuous editorializing". Conspiracy theories and trolling go hand in had, because neither ever has to worry about sincerity or integrity.
 * Posobiec's specific claims about Pizzagate are false He admitted it, but only after the damage had been done. He spread fake news and debunked nonsense, and he is responsible for his own words and actions. Not you, not me, not Wikipedia, not Epstein, not "Democratic Party officials"...
 * Posobiec has made wild speculations in public, but anyone can do that. Posobiec's dislike of a politically convenient group of people who have done bad things, and his friendship with other people who have also done bad things (like the Clark bros.) are both unremarkable and insignificant to this article, unless reliable, independent sources explain them. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: User "Greyfell" has reverted revision 923692439 on that user's talk page after an attempt to request that the user engage in the consensus process here. This is bad-faith behavior. Talk pages have been updated for users "Grayfell" (reverted), "Ad Orientum", "Evergreen Fir", and "Snooganssnoogans" regarding the proposed edits above. Thus far, none of these users have engaged with the request for consensus on this page. Ihuntrocks (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks
 * I disagree with the proposed changes as it elevates "Macronleaks" above more general and important information about him. Further, qualifying the labels of "alt-right" and "internet troll" as just criticisms diminishes them as just epitaphs. Reliable sources characterize him this way, and so should we. The proposed edits whitewash and would engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


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


 * As for the rest of the edits to which there is no objection: Do you offer any objections, or can we assume consensus on the rest of the content? Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks
 * You're going to need more people to weigh in on this for WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I think we have "clear and convincing" levels of evidence from reliable sources that, though he contests the labels, these labels are appropriate without qualifiers. For example, we do not say that "critics of Uri Geller claim he uses conjuring tricks to simulate the effects of psychokinesis and telepathy". Rather, we state is as fact because that's how sources state it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with the wall of text you posted above, but your proposed lead has lot of problems: the introduction should highlight the things Posobiec is best known for. He is not best known for Macronleaks, or his service in the Navy, or his work as a correspondent. He is best known as a conspiracy theorist. His "critics" appear to compose basically every reliable source available to us, so it strikes a false balance to present this as if there's any serious question about his reputation as a purveyor of nonsense. There's definitely no support for these changes, and it is highly unlikely that there will be support for these changes. If you want to pursue this issue further, then please keep your comments brief and civil or other editors are likely to just ignore them. Nblund talk 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


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


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


 * RE: EvergreenFir and Nblund -- If there is a significant question of balance when attempting to include credible neutral or positive biographical information from verifiable sources, and it is demanded that only negative information be kept when other information is available and appropriate per the BLP, then this section should be flagged with a neutrality policy dispute notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihuntrocks (talk Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's how the Washington Post described him today: The conspiracy theory was advanced by Jack Posobiec, a far-right provocateur known for promoting the “Pizzagate” lie.. Even if he were know primarily as a correspondent, that doesn't explain why you would want to dedicate several sentences to describing his military career or his role in Macronleaks. Nothing in WP:BLP requires us to give Posobiec's transparent falsehoods equal billing to the characterization that appears in reliable sources.  Nblund talk 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


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


 * It would stand to reason that the Washington Post's reporting about the event should take precedence over other instances in the same publication to where the event is alluded, but without further description. This brings to light further instances of potential source reliability used in the article to characterize Posobiec, and as such, should be reviewed under the BLP policies regarding sources as well. It also showcases a reliable publication (the same you chose) citing Posobiec's military service career in his biographical introduction, calling into question any contention that this information belongs in his biography. It is strongly urged that we submit this page for a warning for neutrality guideline violations while this is under review, and I am considering making such a request at this time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks
 * the best place for further discussion might be WP:NPOVN. Or to start an WP:RFC  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Revenge reverts
By User:MONGO. MONGO has never edited this article before. Before today, they've never commented on the talk page of this article either. This revert seems to be motivated by the fact that I made a comment at a 3RR report that MONGO filed against User:Snooganssnoogans where he also made threats against User:SPECIFICO ("you're next!") - the report was declined but MONGO refused to drop it. After I made my comment he seems to have checked my edit history, found an article where I'm involved in a disagreement (and being harassed) and proceeded to jump in. This is petty at the very least. More like it's WP:HARASSMENT and WP:STALKING. Of course, simultaneously with engaging in this kind of behavior MONGO complains about ... civility and "pleasant editing environment". Par for the course. You know what makes for an "unpleasant editing environment"? When some editors follow you around just to get their kicks in and pursue petty grudges.  Volunteer Marek  17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merely reverted back to the admin status you are edit warring over. This page, BTW, appeared on a noticeboard I watch. Please bring forth your bad faith accusations to any noticeboard you choose. I concur however that upon reading this article that there are NPOV and BLP concerns, so the template is valid.--MONGO (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ad Orientem's previous administrative intervention in this article has any bearing on this dispute. They are involved in the edit war, having reverted to add the tag twice. This is a matter that is firmly in the realm of a content dispute (as opposed to BLP concerns, which should just be redacted, at least temporarily). At any event, I have protected the page for one week. Now substantive explanations of why the tag should or should not stay in place are due. El_C 18:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "admin status" for an article. An admin does not decide on content as an admin. As far as content is concerned, an admin is just a regular editor and their opinion holds no more weight than a regular user. Which you know since you've been around for awhile.  Volunteer Marek   18:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * except, it seems Ad Orientem continue to deem themselves an uninvolved admin, having applied administrative discretion (including, explicitly, in an admin note) to direct participants to retain the tag, while the matter is being discussed. At the moment, I don't really have time to investigate this, so I'm not going to challenge that assertion further at this time. But if you, yourself, take issue with their decision, you should bring your concerns to the Admin board so they can come under proper review. El_C 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not THAT egregious and I think they were acting in good faith, so admin board is not necessary. However, once you start taking sides in content disputes - and that’s what restoring a NPOV tag is - then you’re no longer acting as an admin but as a regular content editor, whether you declare yourself as involved or not. Freakin’ a. You guys already have way more power so please don’t try to grab even more of it for yourself, by giving yourself privileged status when dealing with content issues. There’s no such thing as “admin status” for an article.  Volunteer Marek   20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the strike-out above...indeed, I too saw it as an admin note to leave tag up until the issues are resolved.--MONGO (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s not an “admin action”. Whether tag stays or goes is decided by editors in the usual manner.  Volunteer Marek   20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you should do is give me a reason I shouldn't put a SD ATTACK tag atop the article once the protection is lifted. But first, apologize to all you have insulted here on this page.--MONGO (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what an "SD ATTACK tag" is but I do know that since you purposefully came to this article to engage in revenge-reverting after I made a comment on your 3RR report not to your liking (while disingenuously complaining about "unpleasant editing environment", lol), the apology is owed to me. Also a cessation of your WP:STALKING.
 * The consensus - as the discussion and the edit history clearly show - is that the tag is spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek   21:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated, you have concerns (which you certainly seem to make with a deep conviction) I suggest you post them at your local noticeboard for review, since of course I am doing this stalking and etc. I don't give a rats ass what the talkpage history shows...things change on the pedia...as "you know".--MONGO (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

add "List of conspiracy theories" link?
add List of conspiracy theories wikilink, such as at "See also"? X1\ (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)