![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll” is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediately. This is an issue on his page and on the Human Events page. As indicated below, several sources have been cited, implying this to be true; but none of these are sufficient to qualify under Wikipedia policies, specifically:
This started on the Human Events article which contained a snippet that outlined the hiring of Jack Posobiec which labeled him as a “conspiracy theorist”. Since this adjective was not used in any of the cited WP:RS; I corrected it to a more appropriate label, “conservative commentator”, a title I have seen used to describe Posobiec in numerous articles. This was quickly reverted and changed back to “conspiracy theorist” with two citations (listed below) added to validate the “conspiracy theorist” label.
1) This Daily Beast article, which fails WP:RELIABILITY on WP:RSP
2) This NYT article, which only calls him a conspiracy theorist in the WP:RSHEADLINES – in the article it calls him a “Pro Trump Activist” who is “notorious for his amateur sleuthing into red herrings like the “Pizzagate” hoax and a conspiracy theory involving the murder of a Democratic aide”. To justify the conspiracy theorist label on Human Events’ page would actually breach WP:SYNTH and be WP:OR. After pointing out these articles breach WP:REDFLAG; I was told that the actual Jack Posobiec article was “heavily sourced” with articles labeling him a “conspiracy theorist”, and to try highlighting the issues on this article’s talk page.
The consensus on this talk page has been that the Posobiec article is poorly written and violates WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE. This is responded to with the assurance that all the citations come from WP:RS and a WP:NPOV. This appears to be the case at first glance, but they ultimately fail WP:BLP protections in other crucial areas upon closer examination. The lead contains “Conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll”; which needs to be removed promptly. Following are the 4 sources cited after “conspiracy theorist” and why they fail Wikipedia standards:
1) NY TIMES A Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story - This article (mentioned earlier) is WP:RSHEADLINES.
2) LA TIMES Trump retweets alt-right media figure who pushed 'PizzaGate' and Seth Rich conspiracy theories –Same as above WP:RSHEADLINES
3) Business Insider Trump retweets alt-right conspiracy theorist amid Charlottesville fallout—This one does call him a conspiracy theorist in the body of the article, but Business Insider is flagged under WP:RSP with no consensus for its reliability, which means we need other corroborating articles to attribute to meet the high standards for WP:BLP.
4) NY TIMES Alternative Narrative Emerges in Conservative Media as Russia Inquiry Widens—The article states that he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist.
Citations for Internet Troll listed below.
1) Playboy Election Night from the Trump Hotel—This is an OpEd, WP:NOTOPINION
2) Philadelphia How Jack Posobiec Became the King of Fake News— This is an OpEd
3) Chicago Sun Times After blasting racism, Trump retweets alt-right post on Chicago crime—No consensus on Chicago Sun Times, but needs more actual WP:RS to corroborate, not OpEds.
4) Vanity Fair “Nonsensical,” “Kooky,” “Idiotic”: The Far Right Seethes Over Trump’s Second Amendment Flip-Flop—This article is an OpEd.
This is extremely problematic. Seems that the original creator of the article user DrFleischman added “Conspiracy theorist” very early on, and only added one WP:RS, the NYT article that breaches WP:RSHEADLINES. It never should have been kept on a living persons lead sentence. I can see that as time passed on, more and more articles were wrongfully (but in good faith) attributed to Internet Troll and Conspiracy theorist. To be clear and review the importance of WP:REDFLAG:
“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”
this article, simply just doesn’t provide enough. We can attribute these opinions into the body of the article; but as opinions, not as fact. Definitely not as fact in the lead sentence. There aren’t enough “multiple high-quality sources” that label Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” or “Internet Troll”, when you disqualify the headlines and OpEds. There have been numerous editors that have commented that the WP:TONE of the Posobiec article is biased & WP:IMPARTIAL – can we reach a consensus to finally remove “Conspiracy Theorist” and “Internet Troll” to better fit an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC tone. MaximusEditor ( talk) 05:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist”...is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediatelythen that would also apply to other BLPs I've seen that call the subject a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of their leads. I might agree with you if such a characterization is made without multiple sources, but in Posobiec's case multiple sources are provided. I see people characterized as an "internet troll" less often, so I won't address that here, but "conspiracy theorist" appears common, when properly sourced. So this isn't a matter that should be addressed specifically about Posobiec, but rather as a broad policy matter, and this isn't the place to do that. Anyway, I'm adding other sources for "conspiracy theorist" that should address the concerns you expressed here, though I find your argument that "he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist" to be dubious. soibangla ( talk) 03:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
1)Donald Trump retweets far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec who took 'rape Melania' sign to rally -- by Maya Oppenheim (January 15,2018)
2) Rand Paul Retweeted PizzaGate Conspiracy Theorist -- by Eric Garcia (July 18, 2018)
3) Amid Criticism Over Charlottesville, Trump Retweets 'Pizzagate' Conspiracy Theorist -- by "no author listed" (August 15,2017)
4) Trump's retweet storm: A Pizzagate conspiracy theorist, a train hitting CNN, and accusations of fascism -- by Jessica Estepa (August 15, 2017)
“Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.”
I’ve read this mans Wikipedia article after listening to an interview of him and I’ve also read the discussion pages here. “Considered an internet troll”? That’s a subjective position and is very much out of place in a biography. What has his career at “One America News Network” entailed? What did his work at the ONI involve? How did he return to the ONI as a civilian? What are his religious beliefs?What are his political beliefs beyond the word “republican” and the disproportionately long list of bullet points of provocative statements (which is the majority of the actual article)? It damages the credibility of Wikipedia and undermines the entire article because it’s immediately apparent that this has been written and edited to portray this individual in a negative light. Waqeem ( talk) 02:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t alter the fact that the article is quite biased against this person. I personally find his views objectionable but I see this trend in many Wikipedia articles. The apparent extension of the activist sphere into Wikipedia. What’s contained within this article may be true, but it may not be true because it appears to have been selectively edited. 75% of the article is essentially a condemnation of his personality and the article is blocked from edits. Waqeem ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire page is biased. duh Warst04 ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is far and away the most biased left-wing hit piece I have found on Wikipedia. I came here knowing nothing about this person, but having long understood that Wikipedia leans left. Now it appears that Wikipedia has lurched left in an event of seismic proportions. Hiding behind supposedly "reliable sources" cannot justify this article's blatant hate. Wikipedia should take down this "article" immediately to preserve some semblance of allegiance to its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.198.48 ( talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I'd like to understand your stream of thought. I'd really do. Do you at least consider the possibility of this article leaning heavily to the left, as a hit piece painting a caricature of this man as everything evil the polite liberal society dislikes, or, after reading it through and through, do you see it as a genuine representation of what he stands for? Can you at least fathom the possibility that all the "reliable sources" skew massively left or is it just my bias? D Daimaoh ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
all the "reliable sources" skew massively left, then that is a "problem" Wikipedia cannot fix, because by foundational policy, we cannot use unreliable sources. Is it problematic that most right-wing sources have chosen to debase themselves into barely-above-parody nonsense-purveyors peddling disinformation, lies, and wishcasting? Sure is. But Wikipedia can't fix that problem. Only the conservative movement can. Someone who has actively promoted the idea that there was a secret cabal of pedophiles abusing children in a pizza restaurant's nonexistent basement is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist - are you suggesting otherwise? NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll google this pizza thing later. But I just heard this man talk in a podcast for about two hours and everything he said contradicts everything that is written in this article. Either he is wrong about himself, or the sources are biased. And this is the pattern throughout articles and bios of anyone leaning even mildly to the right. Someone complains about bias, someone replies a lecture on "reliable sources". From your comment I can infer your political stance, so I guess that's what Wikipedia is about. D Daimaoh ( talk) 00:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll google this pizza thing later...I just heard this man talk in a podcastsuggests that you may know where he is but not how he got here, and so you may not want to
infer your political stancewithout knowing about how he got here, as others do. soibangla ( talk) 00:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason I came to discuss in this particular article is that it smells exactly like other articles of "right wing" people, like, say, Jordan Peterson. Every view the man has was misconstrued and mangled for political purposes on your beloved and holy reliable sources. I read what the man wrote and nothing of the sort was present there. If I had relied exclusively upon the sanctified NYT hit pieces (which is a "reliable source"), I would have come out with nothing but the opinion you all probably have of him as well. Also quite interesting is how a comment like this gathered immediate attention from people politically in lockstep. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I read what the man wroteis all nice and good, but it isn't worth a bucket of spit around here, for you, me or anyone else.
the opinion you all probably have of him as wellis not opinion but rather what reliable sources report, which is what Wikipedia is all about, unlike just about any other user-generated site you will find, such as, you know...Twitter and Parler and stuff. Some are better than others in making that distinction. soibangla ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Soiblanga, hence why I came here to the talk page and did not go on editing to my will. But, please indulge me. If a very politically motivated journalist decided to write a hit piece on me that went contrary to everything I wrote and talked about, and I had a wikipedia page, how would such dispute be decided? In favor of whom? Who would you support? D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I'm proposing. And you know it. I just wish someone could be a little bit more intellectually honest like the first response and I'm getting none of that. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I did not talk about replacing anything, hence why I didn't edit the article myself. I'm asking if you fathom the possibility of your, yes, holy ""reliable sources"" (double scare quotes) being politically motivated towards a very specific agenda and how that could potentially damage the stupendous wikipedia reputation. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
None of the following is true. Wikipedia will not be viewed as a source of information if it continues to lie about conservative people. The following about Jack Posbiec is a lie. "is an American alt-right[2][3][4] and alt-lite[5] political activist, television correspondent and presenter,[6] conspiracy theorist,[7] and Internet troll.[8][9][10][11] Posobiec is best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[12][13][14][15] He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring." 2603:8000:3703:1593:7C69:264E:AE4C:945C ( talk) 16:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
None of the articles used to mention Jack Posobiec is a white supremacist or antisemite actually say that, if you control f jack posobiec in any of the articles one of them refers to him as "alt-right" and another one says he has tweeted out white supremacist symbols such as "1488" in the past. But if you look through his twitter the actual context is really important as when he was mentioned 1488 he was actually mentioning a black nationalist group and comparing the similarities to white nationalism. It does seem that Jack Posobiec has many connections with white supremacists such as Richard Spencer so we can definitely include that, but I don't think theres sufficient evidence to conclude he is a white supremacist or anstisemite himself, also its mentioned multiple times in this wikipedia that he repeated the white genocide conspiracy theory but when you look at the citations for those articles neither one of them even say that he mentioned a white genocide conspiracy theory ever, so it seems like this is completely fabricated unless someone has a real source for that. 73.70.228.14 ( talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Anish631
But if you look through his twitterthis is original research -- we have to go by what reliable sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The entry doesn't fully clarify the 1488 meme, and in fact plays it down somewhat. The 14 is from the Fourteen Words, but the 88 refers to HH = Heil Hitler. So it is inaccurate to say "*1488, or the Fourteen Words*," as they are *not the same thing*. Posobiec has associated with far right extremists such as Richard Spencer, and objected to the presence of Jews in his vicinity, using the triple parentheses to ID Jews, so it is not unfair to describe his repeated use of 1488 as indicative of Nazi sympathies. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.64.227 ( talk) 10:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The ADL [1] says that Alt-lite is defined as (literally in their words) Today, the alt lite, sometimes referred to as the New Right, is loosely-connected movement whose adherents generally shun white supremacist thinking, but who are in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others. Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim; the group abhors everyone on “the left” and traffics in conspiracy theories, including #Pizzagate, which claimed there was evidence of a child slavery ring operating inside a DC pizzeria. The series of increasingly outrageous lies led to death threats against the pizzeria’s owner and employees, and ultimately resulted in a gunman opening fire inside the restaurant in an attempt to “save” the imaginary children."
The ADL also notes that the Alt-right is defined as (again, in their own words) The alt right (short for “alternative right”) is a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and anti-Semites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racist, anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideology. Many seek to re-inject such bigoted ideas into the conservative movement in the United States. The alt right skews younger than other far right groups, and is very active online, using racist memes and message forums on 4chan, 8chan and certain corners of Reddit.
They then note the following on Jack Posobiec:
Jack Posobiec, a conspiracy theorist and author, organized June’s Rally Against Political Violence, after learning that Richard Spencer would be speaking at the Free Speech Rally. He also helmed the DeploraBall, a 2017 inaugural event that attracted many from the alt right and alt lite spheres. He has enthusiastically promoted a range of lies, including the Pizzagate hoax, and attempted to discredit anti-Trump activists by planting an inflammatory “Rape Melania” sign at a protest event. He frequently tweets anti-Muslim sentiments, and has harassed former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin with anti-Muslim slurs online and in person, tweeting, “I screamed ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ at Huma Abedin." He also posted to Facebook: “Citizen Journalist Jack Posobiec Asks Huma Abedin “Is the Muslim Brotherhood Paying Your Legal Fees?” Posobiec was among the protesters who stormed the stage during New York Public Theater’s controversial run of “Julius Caesar,” shouting, “You are all Goebbels! You are all Nazis like Joseph Goebbels... you are inciting terrorists," and, “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!” Posobiec has clashed verbally with white supremacist Richard Spencer, who called Posobiec’s Rally Against Political Violence “pathetic.” Posobiec was until recently the Washington correspondent for right-wing Rebel Media.
Thus, With this, I can conclude that Jack Posobiec is not a Alt-right, but is instead a Alt-lite. Gastropod Gaming ( talk) 04:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The reason why I am saying this is because Candace Owens retweets him almost on a daily basis. If he was alt right then he is a white supremacist and would condemn Owens. 2600:1012:B0E9:9338:AC57:945E:8BA5:D3E1 ( talk) 06:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To add to the first comment, he also had a podcast episode with zuby, who is black, had he really been "alt right" he would've almost certainly turned down the offer, also, I've checked through his tweets and I'd definetly say he is a normal conservative. Siradstonks ( talk) 12:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
“Well, he spoke to a black guy, therefore all these RS’d descriptions of him being a white supremacist are therefore FAKE NEWS.” ( talk) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a lot of incorrect information including white supremacy about this person of interest which I would personally like to correct, it is obviously been done by someone as a joke or someone who has been misinformed. Flameboyskunk ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor placed a comment here making a general criticism about the neutrality of the article. Cullen328 removed their comment erroneously citing wp:notaforum. The item linked to that is a part of wp:not and does not prohibit making a general comment on the article. The common meaning / situation / use citing wp:notaforum is referring to the talk page policy which says that the talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. So not only does that policy not support such a removal, it actually prohibits such refactoring without justification by one of the listed exceptions. Anyone can make such a mistake and I reverted the refactoring. But then @ Calton:then not only doubled down by repeated the mistake, but then added a misguided sarcastic comment directed towards me "remember wp:notaforum" as if I didn't know it, particularly in view it already being the topic of the two edit summaries. And then asserted that the refactoring was OK due to the comment not having a specific actionable item. This is not a reason for removal / one of those exceptions. A comment (without a specific action item) about the general neutrality of the article is certainly acceptable. Calton you should revert your refactoring. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What citation for white supremacy? didn't see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:FF08:900:D064:FFE2:C6D7:B857 ( talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this to your list of references along with his IMDB: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec
Please add to the end of political activities: "Southern Poverty Law Center listed Jack Posobiec as an extremist for the first time on June 8, 2022, citing his links to hate groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers." With this link: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec Meh6000 ( talk) 04:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about this fellow, but this is a politial attack more than an article. Somebody ought to rewrite the article to make it neutral. Wikipedia can't just be a pro-Democrate web site if it is to survive and prosper as an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There have been numerous and constant comments in the talk page that are critical of the content of this article – starting an RFC to discuss the lead paragraph, specifically labels. Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy? Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards? MaximusEditor ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy?Yes of course. Jack P. is a person, hence this article about him falls under BLP. (2)
Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards?Are you asking if all 70 references in the article meet WP:RS? Why do we need an rfc for that? Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 20:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) There is no specific RFC here. But the lead is highly problematic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. This lead looks like an essay-like selection of disparagements against Posobiec. I'll watch this for a week...after that please ping me if desired. North8000 ( talk) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article reads like an overt hit piece. It falls far from Wikipedia's standards for integrity. At the least, the language should be more like: "these sources allege that ....". How can one obviously politicized source can be considered an authoritative marker of "truth" for someone who works for a competing source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.153.234 ( talk) 02:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
÷==Responding to request==
I was requested to see if I could help formulate an RFC. Happy to try to help but upon a closer look I wouldn't know where to start / what any particular question / debate is. It looks like the object of the above RFC was express concern with and ask about the lead. As with all articles reflecting a real-world contest (in this case between the two "sides" of US politics), letting that contest entering into the editing of an article can make it a mess and unpleasant for the editors and dominate the situation, with mild wiki-lawyering being one of the common tools for this. It all goes a lot better and is more fun if folks set that aside just try to make it a good and informative article. The good/bad news is that this article has a lot of simple blatant problems. The reason why I call that good news is that you could move a pretty big step forward by just have an experienced uninvolved editor blaze through it and fix a bunch of simple wikipedia problems. One thing that they would do is lighten up on the uninformative value-laden words. Also another fix under that category is to turn the lead into a summary of the article, which is what a lead is supposed to be. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
simple blatant problemsyou see. What, specifically, are the
uninformative value-laden wordsyou see that are unsupported by reliable sources? What are the
bunch of simple wikipedia problems? soibangla ( talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
in very poor shape. North8000 says the article is rife with
simple blatant problemsbut doesn't articulate what any of them are, nor made any edit to illustrate a problem. soibangla ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I came here based on a request to help. I don't have interest in the topic of this article and it doesn't look like there is much hope fixing it's severe problems at the moment. I plan to leave and unwatch. If I can help, please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add under personal life, after the marriage.... and he was banned by Bumble the following year.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/bumble-bans-alt-right-pizzagater-jack-posobiec-from-app.html 45.48.174.145 ( talk) 22:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
How can this person be labeled as both alt-right and alt-lite? These are different ideologies (even opposing to an extent) that don’t go hand in hand. Torbslifre ( talk) 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are not theories if the intelligence proves it to be factual. 2600:6C5D:17F:E8CC:E5ED:65C8:80C1:C5 ( talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll” is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediately. This is an issue on his page and on the Human Events page. As indicated below, several sources have been cited, implying this to be true; but none of these are sufficient to qualify under Wikipedia policies, specifically:
This started on the Human Events article which contained a snippet that outlined the hiring of Jack Posobiec which labeled him as a “conspiracy theorist”. Since this adjective was not used in any of the cited WP:RS; I corrected it to a more appropriate label, “conservative commentator”, a title I have seen used to describe Posobiec in numerous articles. This was quickly reverted and changed back to “conspiracy theorist” with two citations (listed below) added to validate the “conspiracy theorist” label.
1) This Daily Beast article, which fails WP:RELIABILITY on WP:RSP
2) This NYT article, which only calls him a conspiracy theorist in the WP:RSHEADLINES – in the article it calls him a “Pro Trump Activist” who is “notorious for his amateur sleuthing into red herrings like the “Pizzagate” hoax and a conspiracy theory involving the murder of a Democratic aide”. To justify the conspiracy theorist label on Human Events’ page would actually breach WP:SYNTH and be WP:OR. After pointing out these articles breach WP:REDFLAG; I was told that the actual Jack Posobiec article was “heavily sourced” with articles labeling him a “conspiracy theorist”, and to try highlighting the issues on this article’s talk page.
The consensus on this talk page has been that the Posobiec article is poorly written and violates WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:TONE. This is responded to with the assurance that all the citations come from WP:RS and a WP:NPOV. This appears to be the case at first glance, but they ultimately fail WP:BLP protections in other crucial areas upon closer examination. The lead contains “Conspiracy theorist” and “Internet troll”; which needs to be removed promptly. Following are the 4 sources cited after “conspiracy theorist” and why they fail Wikipedia standards:
1) NY TIMES A Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story - This article (mentioned earlier) is WP:RSHEADLINES.
2) LA TIMES Trump retweets alt-right media figure who pushed 'PizzaGate' and Seth Rich conspiracy theories –Same as above WP:RSHEADLINES
3) Business Insider Trump retweets alt-right conspiracy theorist amid Charlottesville fallout—This one does call him a conspiracy theorist in the body of the article, but Business Insider is flagged under WP:RSP with no consensus for its reliability, which means we need other corroborating articles to attribute to meet the high standards for WP:BLP.
4) NY TIMES Alternative Narrative Emerges in Conservative Media as Russia Inquiry Widens—The article states that he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist.
Citations for Internet Troll listed below.
1) Playboy Election Night from the Trump Hotel—This is an OpEd, WP:NOTOPINION
2) Philadelphia How Jack Posobiec Became the King of Fake News— This is an OpEd
3) Chicago Sun Times After blasting racism, Trump retweets alt-right post on Chicago crime—No consensus on Chicago Sun Times, but needs more actual WP:RS to corroborate, not OpEds.
4) Vanity Fair “Nonsensical,” “Kooky,” “Idiotic”: The Far Right Seethes Over Trump’s Second Amendment Flip-Flop—This article is an OpEd.
This is extremely problematic. Seems that the original creator of the article user DrFleischman added “Conspiracy theorist” very early on, and only added one WP:RS, the NYT article that breaches WP:RSHEADLINES. It never should have been kept on a living persons lead sentence. I can see that as time passed on, more and more articles were wrongfully (but in good faith) attributed to Internet Troll and Conspiracy theorist. To be clear and review the importance of WP:REDFLAG:
“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”
this article, simply just doesn’t provide enough. We can attribute these opinions into the body of the article; but as opinions, not as fact. Definitely not as fact in the lead sentence. There aren’t enough “multiple high-quality sources” that label Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist” or “Internet Troll”, when you disqualify the headlines and OpEds. There have been numerous editors that have commented that the WP:TONE of the Posobiec article is biased & WP:IMPARTIAL – can we reach a consensus to finally remove “Conspiracy Theorist” and “Internet Troll” to better fit an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC tone. MaximusEditor ( talk) 05:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Labeling Jack Posobiec as a “conspiracy theorist”...is a major violation of WP:BLP and this needs to be removed immediatelythen that would also apply to other BLPs I've seen that call the subject a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of their leads. I might agree with you if such a characterization is made without multiple sources, but in Posobiec's case multiple sources are provided. I see people characterized as an "internet troll" less often, so I won't address that here, but "conspiracy theorist" appears common, when properly sourced. So this isn't a matter that should be addressed specifically about Posobiec, but rather as a broad policy matter, and this isn't the place to do that. Anyway, I'm adding other sources for "conspiracy theorist" that should address the concerns you expressed here, though I find your argument that "he spreads right wing conspiracy theories – which does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist" to be dubious. soibangla ( talk) 03:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
1)Donald Trump retweets far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec who took 'rape Melania' sign to rally -- by Maya Oppenheim (January 15,2018)
2) Rand Paul Retweeted PizzaGate Conspiracy Theorist -- by Eric Garcia (July 18, 2018)
3) Amid Criticism Over Charlottesville, Trump Retweets 'Pizzagate' Conspiracy Theorist -- by "no author listed" (August 15,2017)
4) Trump's retweet storm: A Pizzagate conspiracy theorist, a train hitting CNN, and accusations of fascism -- by Jessica Estepa (August 15, 2017)
“Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.”
I’ve read this mans Wikipedia article after listening to an interview of him and I’ve also read the discussion pages here. “Considered an internet troll”? That’s a subjective position and is very much out of place in a biography. What has his career at “One America News Network” entailed? What did his work at the ONI involve? How did he return to the ONI as a civilian? What are his religious beliefs?What are his political beliefs beyond the word “republican” and the disproportionately long list of bullet points of provocative statements (which is the majority of the actual article)? It damages the credibility of Wikipedia and undermines the entire article because it’s immediately apparent that this has been written and edited to portray this individual in a negative light. Waqeem ( talk) 02:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t alter the fact that the article is quite biased against this person. I personally find his views objectionable but I see this trend in many Wikipedia articles. The apparent extension of the activist sphere into Wikipedia. What’s contained within this article may be true, but it may not be true because it appears to have been selectively edited. 75% of the article is essentially a condemnation of his personality and the article is blocked from edits. Waqeem ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire page is biased. duh Warst04 ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is far and away the most biased left-wing hit piece I have found on Wikipedia. I came here knowing nothing about this person, but having long understood that Wikipedia leans left. Now it appears that Wikipedia has lurched left in an event of seismic proportions. Hiding behind supposedly "reliable sources" cannot justify this article's blatant hate. Wikipedia should take down this "article" immediately to preserve some semblance of allegiance to its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.198.48 ( talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I'd like to understand your stream of thought. I'd really do. Do you at least consider the possibility of this article leaning heavily to the left, as a hit piece painting a caricature of this man as everything evil the polite liberal society dislikes, or, after reading it through and through, do you see it as a genuine representation of what he stands for? Can you at least fathom the possibility that all the "reliable sources" skew massively left or is it just my bias? D Daimaoh ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
all the "reliable sources" skew massively left, then that is a "problem" Wikipedia cannot fix, because by foundational policy, we cannot use unreliable sources. Is it problematic that most right-wing sources have chosen to debase themselves into barely-above-parody nonsense-purveyors peddling disinformation, lies, and wishcasting? Sure is. But Wikipedia can't fix that problem. Only the conservative movement can. Someone who has actively promoted the idea that there was a secret cabal of pedophiles abusing children in a pizza restaurant's nonexistent basement is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist - are you suggesting otherwise? NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll google this pizza thing later. But I just heard this man talk in a podcast for about two hours and everything he said contradicts everything that is written in this article. Either he is wrong about himself, or the sources are biased. And this is the pattern throughout articles and bios of anyone leaning even mildly to the right. Someone complains about bias, someone replies a lecture on "reliable sources". From your comment I can infer your political stance, so I guess that's what Wikipedia is about. D Daimaoh ( talk) 00:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll google this pizza thing later...I just heard this man talk in a podcastsuggests that you may know where he is but not how he got here, and so you may not want to
infer your political stancewithout knowing about how he got here, as others do. soibangla ( talk) 00:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason I came to discuss in this particular article is that it smells exactly like other articles of "right wing" people, like, say, Jordan Peterson. Every view the man has was misconstrued and mangled for political purposes on your beloved and holy reliable sources. I read what the man wrote and nothing of the sort was present there. If I had relied exclusively upon the sanctified NYT hit pieces (which is a "reliable source"), I would have come out with nothing but the opinion you all probably have of him as well. Also quite interesting is how a comment like this gathered immediate attention from people politically in lockstep. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I read what the man wroteis all nice and good, but it isn't worth a bucket of spit around here, for you, me or anyone else.
the opinion you all probably have of him as wellis not opinion but rather what reliable sources report, which is what Wikipedia is all about, unlike just about any other user-generated site you will find, such as, you know...Twitter and Parler and stuff. Some are better than others in making that distinction. soibangla ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Soiblanga, hence why I came here to the talk page and did not go on editing to my will. But, please indulge me. If a very politically motivated journalist decided to write a hit piece on me that went contrary to everything I wrote and talked about, and I had a wikipedia page, how would such dispute be decided? In favor of whom? Who would you support? D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I'm proposing. And you know it. I just wish someone could be a little bit more intellectually honest like the first response and I'm getting none of that. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I did not talk about replacing anything, hence why I didn't edit the article myself. I'm asking if you fathom the possibility of your, yes, holy ""reliable sources"" (double scare quotes) being politically motivated towards a very specific agenda and how that could potentially damage the stupendous wikipedia reputation. D Daimaoh ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
None of the following is true. Wikipedia will not be viewed as a source of information if it continues to lie about conservative people. The following about Jack Posbiec is a lie. "is an American alt-right[2][3][4] and alt-lite[5] political activist, television correspondent and presenter,[6] conspiracy theorist,[7] and Internet troll.[8][9][10][11] Posobiec is best known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[12][13][14][15] He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring." 2603:8000:3703:1593:7C69:264E:AE4C:945C ( talk) 16:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
None of the articles used to mention Jack Posobiec is a white supremacist or antisemite actually say that, if you control f jack posobiec in any of the articles one of them refers to him as "alt-right" and another one says he has tweeted out white supremacist symbols such as "1488" in the past. But if you look through his twitter the actual context is really important as when he was mentioned 1488 he was actually mentioning a black nationalist group and comparing the similarities to white nationalism. It does seem that Jack Posobiec has many connections with white supremacists such as Richard Spencer so we can definitely include that, but I don't think theres sufficient evidence to conclude he is a white supremacist or anstisemite himself, also its mentioned multiple times in this wikipedia that he repeated the white genocide conspiracy theory but when you look at the citations for those articles neither one of them even say that he mentioned a white genocide conspiracy theory ever, so it seems like this is completely fabricated unless someone has a real source for that. 73.70.228.14 ( talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Anish631
But if you look through his twitterthis is original research -- we have to go by what reliable sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The entry doesn't fully clarify the 1488 meme, and in fact plays it down somewhat. The 14 is from the Fourteen Words, but the 88 refers to HH = Heil Hitler. So it is inaccurate to say "*1488, or the Fourteen Words*," as they are *not the same thing*. Posobiec has associated with far right extremists such as Richard Spencer, and objected to the presence of Jews in his vicinity, using the triple parentheses to ID Jews, so it is not unfair to describe his repeated use of 1488 as indicative of Nazi sympathies. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.64.227 ( talk) 10:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The ADL [1] says that Alt-lite is defined as (literally in their words) Today, the alt lite, sometimes referred to as the New Right, is loosely-connected movement whose adherents generally shun white supremacist thinking, but who are in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others. Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim; the group abhors everyone on “the left” and traffics in conspiracy theories, including #Pizzagate, which claimed there was evidence of a child slavery ring operating inside a DC pizzeria. The series of increasingly outrageous lies led to death threats against the pizzeria’s owner and employees, and ultimately resulted in a gunman opening fire inside the restaurant in an attempt to “save” the imaginary children."
The ADL also notes that the Alt-right is defined as (again, in their own words) The alt right (short for “alternative right”) is a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and anti-Semites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racist, anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideology. Many seek to re-inject such bigoted ideas into the conservative movement in the United States. The alt right skews younger than other far right groups, and is very active online, using racist memes and message forums on 4chan, 8chan and certain corners of Reddit.
They then note the following on Jack Posobiec:
Jack Posobiec, a conspiracy theorist and author, organized June’s Rally Against Political Violence, after learning that Richard Spencer would be speaking at the Free Speech Rally. He also helmed the DeploraBall, a 2017 inaugural event that attracted many from the alt right and alt lite spheres. He has enthusiastically promoted a range of lies, including the Pizzagate hoax, and attempted to discredit anti-Trump activists by planting an inflammatory “Rape Melania” sign at a protest event. He frequently tweets anti-Muslim sentiments, and has harassed former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin with anti-Muslim slurs online and in person, tweeting, “I screamed ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ at Huma Abedin." He also posted to Facebook: “Citizen Journalist Jack Posobiec Asks Huma Abedin “Is the Muslim Brotherhood Paying Your Legal Fees?” Posobiec was among the protesters who stormed the stage during New York Public Theater’s controversial run of “Julius Caesar,” shouting, “You are all Goebbels! You are all Nazis like Joseph Goebbels... you are inciting terrorists," and, “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!” Posobiec has clashed verbally with white supremacist Richard Spencer, who called Posobiec’s Rally Against Political Violence “pathetic.” Posobiec was until recently the Washington correspondent for right-wing Rebel Media.
Thus, With this, I can conclude that Jack Posobiec is not a Alt-right, but is instead a Alt-lite. Gastropod Gaming ( talk) 04:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The reason why I am saying this is because Candace Owens retweets him almost on a daily basis. If he was alt right then he is a white supremacist and would condemn Owens. 2600:1012:B0E9:9338:AC57:945E:8BA5:D3E1 ( talk) 06:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To add to the first comment, he also had a podcast episode with zuby, who is black, had he really been "alt right" he would've almost certainly turned down the offer, also, I've checked through his tweets and I'd definetly say he is a normal conservative. Siradstonks ( talk) 12:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
“Well, he spoke to a black guy, therefore all these RS’d descriptions of him being a white supremacist are therefore FAKE NEWS.” ( talk) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a lot of incorrect information including white supremacy about this person of interest which I would personally like to correct, it is obviously been done by someone as a joke or someone who has been misinformed. Flameboyskunk ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor placed a comment here making a general criticism about the neutrality of the article. Cullen328 removed their comment erroneously citing wp:notaforum. The item linked to that is a part of wp:not and does not prohibit making a general comment on the article. The common meaning / situation / use citing wp:notaforum is referring to the talk page policy which says that the talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. So not only does that policy not support such a removal, it actually prohibits such refactoring without justification by one of the listed exceptions. Anyone can make such a mistake and I reverted the refactoring. But then @ Calton:then not only doubled down by repeated the mistake, but then added a misguided sarcastic comment directed towards me "remember wp:notaforum" as if I didn't know it, particularly in view it already being the topic of the two edit summaries. And then asserted that the refactoring was OK due to the comment not having a specific actionable item. This is not a reason for removal / one of those exceptions. A comment (without a specific action item) about the general neutrality of the article is certainly acceptable. Calton you should revert your refactoring. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What citation for white supremacy? didn't see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:FF08:900:D064:FFE2:C6D7:B857 ( talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this to your list of references along with his IMDB: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec
Please add to the end of political activities: "Southern Poverty Law Center listed Jack Posobiec as an extremist for the first time on June 8, 2022, citing his links to hate groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers." With this link: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jack-posobiec Meh6000 ( talk) 04:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about this fellow, but this is a politial attack more than an article. Somebody ought to rewrite the article to make it neutral. Wikipedia can't just be a pro-Democrate web site if it is to survive and prosper as an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There have been numerous and constant comments in the talk page that are critical of the content of this article – starting an RFC to discuss the lead paragraph, specifically labels. Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy? Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards? MaximusEditor ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this person being fairly protected under WP:BLP policy?Yes of course. Jack P. is a person, hence this article about him falls under BLP. (2)
Do the cited articles meet Wikipedia WP:RELIABILITY standards?Are you asking if all 70 references in the article meet WP:RS? Why do we need an rfc for that? Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 20:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) There is no specific RFC here. But the lead is highly problematic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. This lead looks like an essay-like selection of disparagements against Posobiec. I'll watch this for a week...after that please ping me if desired. North8000 ( talk) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article reads like an overt hit piece. It falls far from Wikipedia's standards for integrity. At the least, the language should be more like: "these sources allege that ....". How can one obviously politicized source can be considered an authoritative marker of "truth" for someone who works for a competing source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.153.234 ( talk) 02:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
÷==Responding to request==
I was requested to see if I could help formulate an RFC. Happy to try to help but upon a closer look I wouldn't know where to start / what any particular question / debate is. It looks like the object of the above RFC was express concern with and ask about the lead. As with all articles reflecting a real-world contest (in this case between the two "sides" of US politics), letting that contest entering into the editing of an article can make it a mess and unpleasant for the editors and dominate the situation, with mild wiki-lawyering being one of the common tools for this. It all goes a lot better and is more fun if folks set that aside just try to make it a good and informative article. The good/bad news is that this article has a lot of simple blatant problems. The reason why I call that good news is that you could move a pretty big step forward by just have an experienced uninvolved editor blaze through it and fix a bunch of simple wikipedia problems. One thing that they would do is lighten up on the uninformative value-laden words. Also another fix under that category is to turn the lead into a summary of the article, which is what a lead is supposed to be. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
simple blatant problemsyou see. What, specifically, are the
uninformative value-laden wordsyou see that are unsupported by reliable sources? What are the
bunch of simple wikipedia problems? soibangla ( talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
in very poor shape. North8000 says the article is rife with
simple blatant problemsbut doesn't articulate what any of them are, nor made any edit to illustrate a problem. soibangla ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I came here based on a request to help. I don't have interest in the topic of this article and it doesn't look like there is much hope fixing it's severe problems at the moment. I plan to leave and unwatch. If I can help, please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jack Posobiec has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add under personal life, after the marriage.... and he was banned by Bumble the following year.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/bumble-bans-alt-right-pizzagater-jack-posobiec-from-app.html 45.48.174.145 ( talk) 22:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
How can this person be labeled as both alt-right and alt-lite? These are different ideologies (even opposing to an extent) that don’t go hand in hand. Torbslifre ( talk) 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are not theories if the intelligence proves it to be factual. 2600:6C5D:17F:E8CC:E5ED:65C8:80C1:C5 ( talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)