Talk:James Allsup/Archive 2

POV edits...
My edits were not POV, they just removed the phrase "white nationalist anti-immigration", which is wrong for a couple reasons. First, the only other mention of him being a "white nationalist" is in the main paragraph, which only states that he has been described as such (this does not necessarily mean he is one). Second, as far as I can tell, James Allsup is definitely NOT "anti-immigration"; in fact, according to the "Students for Trump" section of this very article, he specifically states that "we need to have a strong immigration policy and enforce the law". How that is supposed to be anti-immigration is beyond me. Additionally, the article that this phrase is taken from is by The Huffington Post, which Wikipedia explicitly describes as a news and opinion website, not just an objective news source, so you shouldn't really be automatically assuming everything from it is objectively factual. Not to say that everything on that particular site is always subjective or false, but still. Neateditor123 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source says it, we report it. Your edits may not have been made from a POV, but they were indistinguishable from ones that are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether The Huffington Post is a reliable source or not is not the main point of my argument. What I'm trying to say here is that the dubbing of him as a "white nationalist anti-immigration" supporter clashes with the rest of the article, which, as I said before, only states that he has been described as a "white nationalist"-not that he necessarily is one-and doesn't even say anything else about how he's apparently "anti-immigration". As such, the fact that that particular description of him is just casually used like that is very awkward and out of place. That's all I'm trying to say here. Neateditor123 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot get into Allsup's head to tell what he really "is", all we can do is echo what reliable sources say he is, without -- as Grayfall says -- adding unnecessary WEASAL words. If sources say that the sky is blue, we say that the sky is blue, we don't say "the sky is described as blue", or "sources say that the sky is blue."  Given that, the dichotomy you're trying to raise just isn't one that is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... does every one of the sources used in the lede for "white nationalist" actually say "white supremacist"? If he's described as a white supremacist by the first six sources (which appear to be reliable) doesn't mean that the article should just say he "is a white supremacist"? We can, and should, mention that he disputes this label, but Wikipedia goes by sources, not public relations. If sources ranging from the Dow Jones Business Wire to BuzzFeed News are comfortable directly saying he is a white supremacist, why are we bloating-up the lede with WP:WEASEL words?
 * This also relates to an ongoing issue on Wikipedia. Sources here, as elsewhere, use "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" interchangeably or based on house style. It's crystal clear from context that they are not concerned with the supposed differences between these two ideologies. If he disputes being called a "white nationalist", he also disputes being called a "white supremacist", because they functionally mean the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , I never said anything about white supremacy, so why is that suddenly involved in this discussion? For the third time (and I really hate having to repeat myself), all I'm trying to say is that the article shouldn't state that he is described as a white nationalist in one sentence and then just blatantly call him that in another, and that's not even mentioning the whole "anti-immigration" crap that I've repeatedly stated doesn't make any sense at all since the article doesn't even remotely go into any detail on why this is the case. Do we really need to keep going over this? I sure hope not. Neateditor123 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to ping me instead of BMK? Regardless, I think your edit was about white supremacy regardless of the flimsy difference between the two. A "white nationalist agenda" is also a "white supremacist agenda", right? As I've said, these two terms are used interchangeably by sources to denote the same concept. Past consensus at Talk:James_Allsup/Archive_1 was to say he "has been described as white supremacist". This was a compromise which I'm still not happy with, but whatever. I'm not sure when "white nationalist" was included, but I don't think it's appropriate based on the specific sources used. Since the lede and body are related, this may relate to your edits as well. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources say that "white nationalism" is basically a fig leaf devised by white supremacists to make their odious ideology look a tiny bit less odious. And, yes, Grayfell is correct: if sources call him a white supremacist, then we should describe him as a white supremacists, not as a white nationaist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So and, what you are both trying to say here is that the phrase "white nationalist" isn't really an appropriate term to describe him, and that we should use "white supremacist" instead based on what the sources say? Fair enough, I guess, but that still doesn't answer my question about what to do with the whole "white nationalist anti-immigration" quote, especially since nothing else in the article even remotely mentions how he's apparently "anti-immigration". Neateditor123 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I think my comments were needlessly confusing. While looking into these edits I noticed that the sources in the lede did not support the attached statement. Related or not, it's a separate issue, and I will start a new section to discuss this.

As for the Huffington Post article, it does discuss his views, and it links these views to his agenda. The article, as I read it, has two main points: Allsup is a prominent extremists and Allsup was elected to a minor GOP office. Everything in the article is expanding on or explaining these two things. The article emphasizes his affiliation with Identity Evropa, and links to both the ADL and SPLC profiles of that organization in the paragraph directly preceding the 'agenda' paragraph. Per countless sources, Identity Evropa is an anti-immigration, anti-Semitic hate group. The paragraph before that starts with Perhaps more notably, Allsup is outspoken about his anti-immigration and anti-Semitic views. The context established by this and other sources is that he is promoting an anti-immigration agenda. If this is not explained adequately elsewhere in the article, that is a problem that should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph
The lede was previously discussed here: Talk:James Allsup/Archive 1. That discussion mentions an even earlier consensus (which I was apparently a part of, but don't remember at all) but it was either on a previously deleted version, or some other page.

Per the above, the sources for ...and a white nationalist... all seem to call him a "white supremacist" instead:

The sources for "white supremacist" also support "white supremacist". I could take a guess as to how this happened, but instead let's revisit the first paragraph. Here's a tentative proposal:


 * James Orien Allsup (born September 7, 1995) is an American far-right white supremacist political commentator and podcaster. He is a member of the American Identity Movement, a white nationalist and neo-Nazi organization. He disputes being a racist, and describes himself as an American nationalist and paleoconservative. (sources as appropriate)

This would allow for links to both white nationalism and white supremacy to be preserved, and would prominently preserve his refutation of the label as a BLP consideration. Since the article barely discusses his YouTuber status, this doesn't seem like it belongs in the lede to me, especially since so few sources even commented on his channel being banned. If this is important, it can be included easily enough.

Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as all of this is kept fair and objective, fine, but that particular paragraph also needs to include some information on his "anti-immigration" views just so that one mentioning of it in the other part of the article doesn't appear so out-of-place. Neateditor123 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PLease WP:DROPTHESTICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are separate entities
See WP:RSP. "There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018.[5] In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION." Doug Weller talk 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
2600:1700:7160:32B0:404C:E738:916E:1108 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This person is not a neo nazi. Nor is he a white supremacist. The is a nationalist which basically means he is not for globalism and recognizes the need to have a unified identity as Americans.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Name
This edit is harassment. Including a private individual's legally changed name, is an intentional attempt to harass the individual. Hthtsaaa (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The above is this editor's first and only contribution to the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, it is a matter of public record. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)