This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned about a reference to a claim made by Hope not Hate. There is no consensus of the reliability of Hope not Hate, and given the context it would seem reasonable to consider Hope not Hate to have a bias. Contentious material about living persons that is not sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. The nature of the claim by Hope not Hate is very contentious and whilst it is made clear that the quote come from Hope not Hate it concerns me that such an unbias source that is lacking in reliability is referenced with regards to a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018
claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas.You should probably try to actually do some research on this joker. Claiming he's a white supremacist sympathizer is not a contentious claim, either. He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. The fact that you personally object to it is completely immaterial. I object to the fact that the article Alt-right doesn't start with "The alt-right is a loose collection of fucking morons who..." but you don't see me whining about it there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it.This is what I am getting at, if reliable sources can be cited to support a statement then they should be included in the wiki page. Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia. You state "we have the reliable sources to prove it" where are reliable sources to accompany the statement "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." This is a question of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018
Could someone point me in the right direction for the appropriate discussion page, regarding the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Does he support slavery, though? I know of one video in which he was asked what his most extreme rightwing view is and he laughingly answered "I think maybe I'm in favour of slavery". I don't think you can call that support, though. The question was asking for him to say something outrageous and he laughed as he complied. Has he ever made an actual argument in favour of slavery? Certainly it's not a frequent topic on his channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.79.182.103 ( talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I know left-leaning propagandists rely heavily on this smear tactic (along with intentionally conflating nationalism with supremacism), but in the interests of honesty and credibility this article should not refer to Rebel Media, a media organisation run by a Jew and with ehtnic minority presenters as "Alt-Right". I have no doubt you can cite Guardian articles refering to Rebel Media, Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage and even Theresa May (looking at you David Lammy) as Alt-Right, but as none of them are concerned exclusively (even at all) with the interests of people of European descent it does not qualify.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.253 ( talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This line is a bit weird. Are intellectual property jobs not being counted anymore? He made, and has made thousands of dollars month on his various payment processors, and live streams. It just seems bizarre to state someone is "unemployed" when they make more money than many other British citizens. Way too much weight is given to that tabloid claim, and it should be cut from the article, no matter what other complains one may have of the person. Someone making 30-40k pounds a year, and paying taxes is far from unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:A149:C3DA:316E:4C74 ( talk) 02:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Jlevi ( talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed these labels as he is avowedly neither of the two. He is not a white supremacist and does not believe that white people are inherently superior to other races or should dominate them, ever. Never has he argued or supported this. He has never spoken of any grand jewish conspiracy, but that Jewish groups tend to be on the vanguard of what he views as negative social changes in the West, which is true. This is supported by demographic opinion polls that show overt hostility towards White Americans amongst American jews, among other things. The articles are manufacturing negative labels on Woes and other members of the dissident right out of thin air, repeating them ad infinitum to achieve a Pavlovian response, then they're peppered over these articles in one grand POVPush smear using "reliable sources" that are not reliable nor have any actual proof of their accusations beyond the personal opinion of the journalist who wrote the article.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned about a reference to a claim made by Hope not Hate. There is no consensus of the reliability of Hope not Hate, and given the context it would seem reasonable to consider Hope not Hate to have a bias. Contentious material about living persons that is not sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. The nature of the claim by Hope not Hate is very contentious and whilst it is made clear that the quote come from Hope not Hate it concerns me that such an unbias source that is lacking in reliability is referenced with regards to a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018
claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas.You should probably try to actually do some research on this joker. Claiming he's a white supremacist sympathizer is not a contentious claim, either. He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. The fact that you personally object to it is completely immaterial. I object to the fact that the article Alt-right doesn't start with "The alt-right is a loose collection of fucking morons who..." but you don't see me whining about it there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it.This is what I am getting at, if reliable sources can be cited to support a statement then they should be included in the wiki page. Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia. You state "we have the reliable sources to prove it" where are reliable sources to accompany the statement "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." This is a question of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018
Could someone point me in the right direction for the appropriate discussion page, regarding the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 ( talk) 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Does he support slavery, though? I know of one video in which he was asked what his most extreme rightwing view is and he laughingly answered "I think maybe I'm in favour of slavery". I don't think you can call that support, though. The question was asking for him to say something outrageous and he laughed as he complied. Has he ever made an actual argument in favour of slavery? Certainly it's not a frequent topic on his channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.79.182.103 ( talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I know left-leaning propagandists rely heavily on this smear tactic (along with intentionally conflating nationalism with supremacism), but in the interests of honesty and credibility this article should not refer to Rebel Media, a media organisation run by a Jew and with ehtnic minority presenters as "Alt-Right". I have no doubt you can cite Guardian articles refering to Rebel Media, Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage and even Theresa May (looking at you David Lammy) as Alt-Right, but as none of them are concerned exclusively (even at all) with the interests of people of European descent it does not qualify.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.253 ( talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This line is a bit weird. Are intellectual property jobs not being counted anymore? He made, and has made thousands of dollars month on his various payment processors, and live streams. It just seems bizarre to state someone is "unemployed" when they make more money than many other British citizens. Way too much weight is given to that tabloid claim, and it should be cut from the article, no matter what other complains one may have of the person. Someone making 30-40k pounds a year, and paying taxes is far from unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:A149:C3DA:316E:4C74 ( talk) 02:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Jlevi ( talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed these labels as he is avowedly neither of the two. He is not a white supremacist and does not believe that white people are inherently superior to other races or should dominate them, ever. Never has he argued or supported this. He has never spoken of any grand jewish conspiracy, but that Jewish groups tend to be on the vanguard of what he views as negative social changes in the West, which is true. This is supported by demographic opinion polls that show overt hostility towards White Americans amongst American jews, among other things. The articles are manufacturing negative labels on Woes and other members of the dissident right out of thin air, repeating them ad infinitum to achieve a Pavlovian response, then they're peppered over these articles in one grand POVPush smear using "reliable sources" that are not reliable nor have any actual proof of their accusations beyond the personal opinion of the journalist who wrote the article.