This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Richard Hanania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Created by LonelyBoy2012 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Hanania; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
This copied from a User:Magnolia talk page:
I think it´s perfectly fair to describe him as part of the Alt-Right. StrongALPHA ( talk) 08:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Djflem ( talk) 13:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Have reverted this edit until such time a proper source, if one appears, is added to article. Djflem ( talk) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
His body of work might indicate as such, a 2nd source needs to claim that:
Djflem ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't do this:
Richard Hanania | |
---|---|
Nationality | American |
Alma mater | |
Known for | Rightwing activism |
https://wealthyspy.com/richard-hanania/ StrongALPHA ( talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
While I personally consider Richard Hanania to be a contemptible lout, this article seems almost comically disproportionate in its coverage. There are eighteen inline references to a single piece; we are practically bleeding it dry. Over half of the "career" section (1,950 characters versus 1,816) is devoted to a summary of... a bunch of blog comments he wrote pseudonymously fifteen years ago? This seems undue, seeing as virtually nobody saw or cared about his dumb blog posts from 2008, versus his writing as a pundit in recent years, where he's appeared on national networks and had millions of readers, et cetera. Again, his opinions are loathsome, but this seems rather out of line and potentially a walking BLP violation.
The fact that people in above sections are trawling RationalWiki for sources for this article is a serious red flag; can't we do better than this? jp× g 10:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. If we are citing the subject of an article writing about themselves, this seems like an obvious example of the specific thing mentioned ("for an attributed opinion"). jp× g 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"Balance" doesn't require false balance. We don't pepper the article with known bad sources to try to make Hanania fans feel better. It's not clear that Hanania is actually very notable at all, but what we do put needs to be restricted to RSes. If this "feels" unbalanced to you, take it up with the RSes - David Gerard ( talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Just chiming in to agree with the OP. The article was clearly written by people who hate the guy, I also hate the guy, but Wikipedia isn’t a venue for us to air our grievances. That’s what Twitter is for. Joeletaylor ( talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (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.
I'm the subject of this article. I posted things anonymously a long time ago that got no attention, and have a career under my own name, in which I've been published in the NYT, Washington Post, The Atlantic, and many other publications. The anonymous writings are clearly the focus on the piece.
By my search, I appear 14 times in New York Times articles. Only two are related to the news about my pseudonym, and only one of them makes me the focus of the piece. Those two articles get cited in the Wiki page, and there's nothing about any of my ideas that got coverage elsewhere in the paper, including my own op-eds. There is practically no discussion of my ideas at all in the piece, except when they can be tied to past anonymous writings. And there is nothing about more moderate stances, like being pro-immigration, and defending the MSM from conservative attacks.
I also went to the Washington Post and searched for my name. Found two articles by me, nothing about the pseudonym controversy.
If I'm not important enough to have an in-depth treatment of my ideas, fine. But it's very weird to ignore my entire career which has gotten a lot of mainstream coverage, and make the center of the piece about anonymous writings from the past.
Also, the article heavily implies I was cancelled from the University of Texas, which wasn't true. My fellowship expired that month, taking my name from the website was due at the time anyway. I don't know if it was a coincidence or whatever, but that's about the time it should've happened and may have been unrelated. Regardless, this article shouldn't give the impression I lost a job there.
Finally, if you want to include hostile quotes from me, why not positive ones too? Tyler Cowen: "You should all be getting Richard’s Substack. Of all the 'new thinkers' on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" See also Bryan Caplan's blog post "Hanania the wise." If you're going to include the negative comments, surely you shouldn't leave the reader with the impression that no one has ever said anything positive about me. RHanania23 ( talk) 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided"– so I guess some of it could be trimmed down. Also see WP:NOCRIT
We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people., which you made on the 14 May this year, [3] with a straight face? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it.Various other users have already discussed the balance on the article, see the comments from experienced users here. The page failed nomination for 'did you know' because it relies too heavily on a source about a 15 year old drama. This isn't a courtroom and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not his disavowal was genuine. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"We are not here to write hagiographies at the subjects request"– I have already explained to Hanania how Wikipedia is written using secondary and independent sources. He did the right thing per WP:ASFAQ. It might be useful to also see WP:NOBITING. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
comically disproportionatefocus on controversy, you'd better gain consensus first. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
who else edited my page. I have been lifting weights in my local gym. I am not a man to mess with. I have been reliably informed this article was written by a bald antifa loser. I am not wearing a wig and have a full set of hair despite I am nearly in my 40sZenomonoz ( talk) 11:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I also note (and this may well violate NPOV ) that the lede puts these views in the past tense, and does not say (which RS do) that he still holds them. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article has been advertised by Hanania on Twitter (now X) [13] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. The agenda here is to remove sources from the lead. We now have accounts who have never edited this article before white-washing the lead [14]. Page protection may be useful here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, then lets seem some suggestions of the content we can add (based on RS) that we can use to balance this. Becaiue we have to go by what RS say, and it seems to be we use a lot more than one source. Slatersteven ( talk)
"there is good RS for the claim his views have not changed"seems questionable. Clearly, he isn't writing in favour of forced sterilisation anymore, so his views have changed. Public figures disavow their old misdeeds all the time, and many people are not happy with their disavowals/apologies. Questioning of an apology/disavowal isn't worth mentioning in the lead. It can be put in the body if attributed, and should probably be clear about why they think he is still a racist using examples: some argue that his discussions of race and crime are racist. But per WP:LABEL it is best practice to always attribute any value-laden labels. Some of the things Hanania wrote were clearly reprehensible, but it feels like a lot of editors are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Zenomonoz ( talk) 21:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
https://stanfordreview.org/how-did-everything-get-so-liberal/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Tyler Cowen in
Marginal Revolution
"Of all the “new thinkers” on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Ross Durant in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/opinion/conservative-mainstream-media.html Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
two RH pieces covered in this Washington Post piece
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/30/cheer-up-conservatives-liberals-feel-just-miserable-you-do/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
another WP piece discussing RH views.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/04/lesson-election-democrats-spend-too-much-time-institutions-not-enough-voters/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to mention a 2008-2012 controversy in TWO paragraphs in the lead. This controversy is covered in one section and is more suitably covered in one paragraph in the intro MOS:LEAD to keep things chronological.
Likewise, the use of three (?) different quotes in the lead seems excessive: editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article
. Adding in a quote about a ""target of a cancellation effort" seems needless. The earlier comments on this talk page, which precede all of this increased editing activity already had concerns about the weight placed on his prior blog writing controversy. The simplest and most suitable thing to do is simply write this like an encyclopaedia. Brief mention of the most significant controversy, and the detail can be read in the body.
Also, keep in mind this article failed a nomination for "Did You Know?" partly because it "unduly focused" on the Hoste controversy. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative, this undo should have read 'second sentence'. I am not opposed to rewriting the lead, but "whose writing has been described as racist" seems comical in the second sentence. Zenomonoz ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative, putting "others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism, pointing to a 2023 social-media post that referred to Black people as animals"
in the lead seems inappropriate. The
tweet does not refer to black people. Hanania appears to be arguing that violent criminals are "animals" no matter how they dress. In addition, the sentence you added which says "his writing has been described as overtly racist"
already shows that sources call him a racist, so the questioning is unnecessary. In fact, the old format of the lead was better because it was chronological, thus the questioning of the disavowal followed it by acknowledging some of his recent writing has been labelled as racist.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism"is WP:EDITORIAL. Did Hanania "disavow racism"? Or did he disavow his past writing? The sentence before says he disavowed his previous writing. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted ... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism.It should probably say "though others have highlighted that Hanania still makes racist statements" or something of the like? Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I am more interested in the value of Wikipedia than in Hanania. Being a regular user of science and culture Wikipedia, I appreciate the high-quality factual coverage most articles provide. This is the first time I looked at a page for a political writer and am shocked at the extreme bias in this article. I tried to edit it to give it a slight level of balance, but the edits were removed right away. Wikipedia should just remove this article completely. As it stands, it is just a defamatory diatribe not comparable to normal articles. Infinite Geometry ( talk) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Should we add a paragraph about a controversy on Twitter where he asked whether or not it should be allowed for Jeffrey Epstein to pay 10 million dollars to "have sex with a 14-year old girl?" CerealContainer ( talk) 23:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I added a source on his politics from last year linking him to the New Right.
The article quotes a comment Hanania made as recent as last year saying: "[I]f I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post." The idea he renounced his fascist and right-wing authoritarian views is laughable. 2A00:23C6:C022:C701:904E:8571:793:B0EA ( talk) 13:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Basically the title, the article doesn't say that Hanania is right-wing. We should either get a better source or remove it. 212.116.83.55 ( talk) 20:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Richard Hanania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Created by LonelyBoy2012 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richard Hanania; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
This copied from a User:Magnolia talk page:
I think it´s perfectly fair to describe him as part of the Alt-Right. StrongALPHA ( talk) 08:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Djflem ( talk) 13:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Have reverted this edit until such time a proper source, if one appears, is added to article. Djflem ( talk) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
His body of work might indicate as such, a 2nd source needs to claim that:
Djflem ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't do this:
Richard Hanania | |
---|---|
Nationality | American |
Alma mater | |
Known for | Rightwing activism |
https://wealthyspy.com/richard-hanania/ StrongALPHA ( talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
While I personally consider Richard Hanania to be a contemptible lout, this article seems almost comically disproportionate in its coverage. There are eighteen inline references to a single piece; we are practically bleeding it dry. Over half of the "career" section (1,950 characters versus 1,816) is devoted to a summary of... a bunch of blog comments he wrote pseudonymously fifteen years ago? This seems undue, seeing as virtually nobody saw or cared about his dumb blog posts from 2008, versus his writing as a pundit in recent years, where he's appeared on national networks and had millions of readers, et cetera. Again, his opinions are loathsome, but this seems rather out of line and potentially a walking BLP violation.
The fact that people in above sections are trawling RationalWiki for sources for this article is a serious red flag; can't we do better than this? jp× g 10:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. If we are citing the subject of an article writing about themselves, this seems like an obvious example of the specific thing mentioned ("for an attributed opinion"). jp× g 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"Balance" doesn't require false balance. We don't pepper the article with known bad sources to try to make Hanania fans feel better. It's not clear that Hanania is actually very notable at all, but what we do put needs to be restricted to RSes. If this "feels" unbalanced to you, take it up with the RSes - David Gerard ( talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Just chiming in to agree with the OP. The article was clearly written by people who hate the guy, I also hate the guy, but Wikipedia isn’t a venue for us to air our grievances. That’s what Twitter is for. Joeletaylor ( talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (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.
I'm the subject of this article. I posted things anonymously a long time ago that got no attention, and have a career under my own name, in which I've been published in the NYT, Washington Post, The Atlantic, and many other publications. The anonymous writings are clearly the focus on the piece.
By my search, I appear 14 times in New York Times articles. Only two are related to the news about my pseudonym, and only one of them makes me the focus of the piece. Those two articles get cited in the Wiki page, and there's nothing about any of my ideas that got coverage elsewhere in the paper, including my own op-eds. There is practically no discussion of my ideas at all in the piece, except when they can be tied to past anonymous writings. And there is nothing about more moderate stances, like being pro-immigration, and defending the MSM from conservative attacks.
I also went to the Washington Post and searched for my name. Found two articles by me, nothing about the pseudonym controversy.
If I'm not important enough to have an in-depth treatment of my ideas, fine. But it's very weird to ignore my entire career which has gotten a lot of mainstream coverage, and make the center of the piece about anonymous writings from the past.
Also, the article heavily implies I was cancelled from the University of Texas, which wasn't true. My fellowship expired that month, taking my name from the website was due at the time anyway. I don't know if it was a coincidence or whatever, but that's about the time it should've happened and may have been unrelated. Regardless, this article shouldn't give the impression I lost a job there.
Finally, if you want to include hostile quotes from me, why not positive ones too? Tyler Cowen: "You should all be getting Richard’s Substack. Of all the 'new thinkers' on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" See also Bryan Caplan's blog post "Hanania the wise." If you're going to include the negative comments, surely you shouldn't leave the reader with the impression that no one has ever said anything positive about me. RHanania23 ( talk) 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided"– so I guess some of it could be trimmed down. Also see WP:NOCRIT
We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people., which you made on the 14 May this year, [3] with a straight face? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it.Various other users have already discussed the balance on the article, see the comments from experienced users here. The page failed nomination for 'did you know' because it relies too heavily on a source about a 15 year old drama. This isn't a courtroom and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not his disavowal was genuine. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"We are not here to write hagiographies at the subjects request"– I have already explained to Hanania how Wikipedia is written using secondary and independent sources. He did the right thing per WP:ASFAQ. It might be useful to also see WP:NOBITING. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
comically disproportionatefocus on controversy, you'd better gain consensus first. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
who else edited my page. I have been lifting weights in my local gym. I am not a man to mess with. I have been reliably informed this article was written by a bald antifa loser. I am not wearing a wig and have a full set of hair despite I am nearly in my 40sZenomonoz ( talk) 11:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I also note (and this may well violate NPOV ) that the lede puts these views in the past tense, and does not say (which RS do) that he still holds them. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article has been advertised by Hanania on Twitter (now X) [13] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. The agenda here is to remove sources from the lead. We now have accounts who have never edited this article before white-washing the lead [14]. Page protection may be useful here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, then lets seem some suggestions of the content we can add (based on RS) that we can use to balance this. Becaiue we have to go by what RS say, and it seems to be we use a lot more than one source. Slatersteven ( talk)
"there is good RS for the claim his views have not changed"seems questionable. Clearly, he isn't writing in favour of forced sterilisation anymore, so his views have changed. Public figures disavow their old misdeeds all the time, and many people are not happy with their disavowals/apologies. Questioning of an apology/disavowal isn't worth mentioning in the lead. It can be put in the body if attributed, and should probably be clear about why they think he is still a racist using examples: some argue that his discussions of race and crime are racist. But per WP:LABEL it is best practice to always attribute any value-laden labels. Some of the things Hanania wrote were clearly reprehensible, but it feels like a lot of editors are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Zenomonoz ( talk) 21:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
https://stanfordreview.org/how-did-everything-get-so-liberal/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Tyler Cowen in
Marginal Revolution
"Of all the “new thinkers” on the Right, he is the one who most combines extreme smarts and first-rate work ethic, with non-conformism thrown in to boot. Read him!" Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Ross Durant in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/opinion/conservative-mainstream-media.html Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
two RH pieces covered in this Washington Post piece
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/30/cheer-up-conservatives-liberals-feel-just-miserable-you-do/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
another WP piece discussing RH views.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/04/lesson-election-democrats-spend-too-much-time-institutions-not-enough-voters/ Jazi Zilber ( talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to mention a 2008-2012 controversy in TWO paragraphs in the lead. This controversy is covered in one section and is more suitably covered in one paragraph in the intro MOS:LEAD to keep things chronological.
Likewise, the use of three (?) different quotes in the lead seems excessive: editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article
. Adding in a quote about a ""target of a cancellation effort" seems needless. The earlier comments on this talk page, which precede all of this increased editing activity already had concerns about the weight placed on his prior blog writing controversy. The simplest and most suitable thing to do is simply write this like an encyclopaedia. Brief mention of the most significant controversy, and the detail can be read in the body.
Also, keep in mind this article failed a nomination for "Did You Know?" partly because it "unduly focused" on the Hoste controversy. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative, this undo should have read 'second sentence'. I am not opposed to rewriting the lead, but "whose writing has been described as racist" seems comical in the second sentence. Zenomonoz ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative, putting "others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism, pointing to a 2023 social-media post that referred to Black people as animals"
in the lead seems inappropriate. The
tweet does not refer to black people. Hanania appears to be arguing that violent criminals are "animals" no matter how they dress. In addition, the sentence you added which says "his writing has been described as overtly racist"
already shows that sources call him a racist, so the questioning is unnecessary. In fact, the old format of the lead was better because it was chronological, thus the questioning of the disavowal followed it by acknowledging some of his recent writing has been labelled as racist.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism"is WP:EDITORIAL. Did Hanania "disavow racism"? Or did he disavow his past writing? The sentence before says he disavowed his previous writing. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted ... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism.It should probably say "though others have highlighted that Hanania still makes racist statements" or something of the like? Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I am more interested in the value of Wikipedia than in Hanania. Being a regular user of science and culture Wikipedia, I appreciate the high-quality factual coverage most articles provide. This is the first time I looked at a page for a political writer and am shocked at the extreme bias in this article. I tried to edit it to give it a slight level of balance, but the edits were removed right away. Wikipedia should just remove this article completely. As it stands, it is just a defamatory diatribe not comparable to normal articles. Infinite Geometry ( talk) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Should we add a paragraph about a controversy on Twitter where he asked whether or not it should be allowed for Jeffrey Epstein to pay 10 million dollars to "have sex with a 14-year old girl?" CerealContainer ( talk) 23:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I added a source on his politics from last year linking him to the New Right.
The article quotes a comment Hanania made as recent as last year saying: "[I]f I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post." The idea he renounced his fascist and right-wing authoritarian views is laughable. 2A00:23C6:C022:C701:904E:8571:793:B0EA ( talk) 13:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Basically the title, the article doesn't say that Hanania is right-wing. We should either get a better source or remove it. 212.116.83.55 ( talk) 20:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)