User talk:YorkvilleFan

Please read this sanctions alert relating to all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Doug Weller talk 08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to emphasise that this doesn't mean that you have violated these sanctions, it's just that it's important for new editors to be aware of them. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Big tent
Big tent? For real? Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/alt-right-movement-doxxing-richard-spencer-interview

Numerous other sources have Richard Spencer and news sources considering it a big tent site for the alt-right. Even if his views personally aren't.

YorkvilleFan (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That site uses "big tent" in quotation marks. It's citing Spencer's PR about the site, not presenting a factual assessment. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and repeating an unreliable site's own PR about itself as though it were a simple fact is very promotional. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But shouldn't be it be listed? That would be a notable fact to include in the article. Perhaps in quotation marks? This isn't a minor detail, and it is a fundamental aspect of the website, as they have allowed more moderate voices on to the website. If it is in quotations or listed as said by Spencer, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. It's an important detailYorkvilleFan (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How is it important? Who is saying they are more moderate and compared to what standard? Attributing the "big tent" label to Spencer is acceptable for now, but any emphasis or interpretation should come from WP:SECONDARY sources. Even mentioning an otherwise minor detail is a form or emphasis and can sometimes be editorializing. Spencer is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and he is a primary source for the Wikipedia article about him, so he can be used, but only with caution. Determining how moderate or important these kinds of details are risks original research, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll work on getting more sources for it right now. And thanks for the information, wasn't aware of some of this.. YorkvilleFan (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, do you think that the article include notable contributors to the site, not just staff members? In my opinion, it is more then fat, and an important detail that should be added.YorkvilleFan (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. I apologize for for being brusk, but it appeared you were promoting the site, which is unacceptable.
 * Listing contributors is a difficult line to walk. "Notable" is a problem, because it implies that they are notable for some reason other than writing for the site. Just mentioning names is not sufficient context. If Wikipedia claims they are notable we have to provide the reader with a way to understand who they are or why we're mentioning them. On the other hand, going into detail about who they are is not appropriate for an article that's supposed to be about Spencer, so that's not good fix.
 * For convenience, "notable" on Wikipedia is usually established by an existing article (WP:NBIO) which gets complicated. An article about William Regnery, for example, was previously deleted (Articles for deletion/William Regnery II), and William Regnery now redirects to The Occidental Quarterly, which is the only claim to notability Regnery has. Likewise, I don't think any of the other notable people you've mentioned have clear claims to notability. This may seem like a technicality, because they have been 'noted' by the sources you've used, but mentioning a lot of people without any indication of who they are is WP:UNDUE, and it also vastly overstates the significance of this one white supremacist website. Length, in this case, is a form of promotion also. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3 of the people listed are staff members of the website, while the other two have Wikipedia articles about them or highly influential in the alt-right/white nationalist community. I think the edit I made satisfies being short and simple, while remaining informative. Perhaps we should split it between staff members and notable members. They basically co-run the site, so it deserves to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkvilleFan (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 February 2017 YorkvilleFan (UTC)

Why do they deserve to be mentioned, exactly? Wikipedia is explicitly not a staff directory for obscure, recently launched websites. How is this encyclopedically significant, as supported by reliable, independent sources? Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)