This article was nominated for deletion on June 26 2006. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A recent edit to the Lucian Wintrich page was made by 72.208.23.54, where a description of Milo Yiannaopolous was removed, and the justification read, "Do NOT cite leftist sources like NYT to describe someone's views, use more neutral sources like WSJ etc".
NYT is a respected source, not a "leftist source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
User:HaeB: Is Inquisitr a banned source like the Daily Mail? If it is, I apologise for using it as a RS. However if it's not, the first part of the content about Malia Obama should be restored. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/2/1686263/-WH-correspondent-cronies-Native-Indians-should-go-back-to-your-country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.217.210 ( talk) 07:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the "conspiracy theorist" from the intro sentence, as:
1. There's no citation provided, and no discussion at all in the body of the articles about what "conspiracy theories" he promotes or how central that is to his work.
2. Using such a label (especially without citation) in the intro is highly prejudicial, and I don't think it's appropriate if the promotion of conspiracy theories is not a primary thing that the person is known for. I would want to see multiple reliable sources which referred to him in such a manner.
Incidentally, even if he does believe in one, or a few, conspiracy theories (as many people do), the "conspiracy theorist" label would not be appropriate unless promotion of said theories was one of the person's primary claims to fame. - 2003:CA:83C8:2300:1C5F:80CE:1A06:A8E7 ( talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Please only add reliable third-party sources where Wintrich is mentioned. This article is about Wintrich, not Gateway Pundit. Our readers will be able to click on the wikilink. Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "alt-right" should appear in the lede, but in the body of the text. I moved it to the body of the text, but it was added to the lede again by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, without consensus. The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the text, yet it does not appear there now (only in the lede)... Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
. Not sure what you are reading to arrive at this conclusion. WP:TALKDONTREVERT (which links to the heading "consensus building in talk-pages") as well as the rest of the consensus policy page refers to consensus building as a form of dispute mediation and contains no partiality concerning whether or not the dispute concerns an inclusion or removal of content. You might be thinking of BLP violation policies, but these do not apply here, as no unsourced, poorly sourced defamatory or potentially libelous content is under dispute. Edaham ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)"We only need consensus for inclusion, not for removal of content"
You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that robust citations in a lede section of a BLP are "undue". Maybe take a look at some opinions in the essay Wikipedia:Citation_underkill. That's about as deep as we need go into a discussion of policy on this talk page. The issue, including consensus seems to have been resolved for the most part. I agree with and I'll definitely consider how to expand on the event in the career section of the body. Thanks for collaborating and happy editing. Have a great day. Edaham ( talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Wintrich has been described as alt-right and formerly identified himself with the movement, but has since rejected and distanced himself from it.The current version by Masterknighted is unacceptable because it states, as fact, that Wintrich is no longer identified by anyone as alt-right —
was formerly identified with the movement. This is not reflected by reliable sources, including academic sources such as Project Censored, which currently identify Wintrich as alt-right, his personal denials notwithstanding. Therefore, the NPOV wording is to state that he has been identified with the movement, attribute his rejection and allow readers to decide where the truth lies. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
What a bunch of hot air either he said he was alt-right or he did not - Masterknighted ( talk) 19:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Lucian Wintrich, of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit, told me that, last year, the term alt-right “was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become of establishment conservatism.” Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.”This is factual and cited. The source clearly says that Wintrich counted himself as part of the alt-right at one time, but has since rejected it - so that's what the lede says. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Dear Wikipedia,
I am the director of Artists For Trump Coalition. First, I want to commend Wikipedia for offering knowledge to the world and to attempt to do so in a unbiased manner. This is a noble mission.
However I do have a very important correction to bring to your attention. Our group (AFTC) orchestrated the first pro-Trump art exhibition. Furthermore we appear to be the only organic coalition of artists for Trump.
Political commentator Lucian Wintrich has been credited with organizing the first pro-Trump art exhibition on your website Wikipedia. This is factually incorrect.
/info/en/?search=Lucian_Wintrich
Every art exhibition has a life cycle of several stages. Professionals with a deep curatorial understanding know this. If you consider both exhibitions from a holistic point of view, AFTC was without a doubt first.
The AFTC open call began August 4th 2016. This is a documented fact with multiple third party verifications. This all happened weeks before Wintrich even began organizing his show.
Wintrichs’ talk of using interns, suggests Breitbart may have done more than just cover his story. This brings a question of authenticity to the Wintrich show. If the Wintrich show was part of the Breitbart / Brad Parscale Trump advertising campaign, flush with millions of dollars and not open to the public, this would further delegitimize the Wintrich claim.
Artist For Trump Coalition was an grass roots creation. The real thing. I should know, I paid for it myself with my own time building the website and $300 for an open call (open to the public) ad.
Regardless, the AFTC open call was August 4th and this was weeks before anything from Wintrich. Viewed from this perspective, AFTC should be receiving the first trump exhibition title.
I ask that you correct this information on your website and give AFTC its due credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.239.25 ( talk) 08:37, December 22, 2017
The Wintrich article has been changed to specify that the claim of "first pro-Trump art show in the nation's history" was a claim of Wintrich's, as reported by David Freedlander of The Daily Beast. [1] The Wikipedia article had previously stated erroneously that Wintrich's art exhibit was "considered to have been" the first pro-Trump art show, without stating who it was, who had "considered" it so (Wintrich himself). Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I reverted the recent additions via this edit: [1]; my rationale was: "Revert non-neutral changes by a SPA; also at User_talk:Onemorecupofcoffeetilligo#Lucian_Wintrich". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on June 26 2006. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A recent edit to the Lucian Wintrich page was made by 72.208.23.54, where a description of Milo Yiannaopolous was removed, and the justification read, "Do NOT cite leftist sources like NYT to describe someone's views, use more neutral sources like WSJ etc".
NYT is a respected source, not a "leftist source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
User:HaeB: Is Inquisitr a banned source like the Daily Mail? If it is, I apologise for using it as a RS. However if it's not, the first part of the content about Malia Obama should be restored. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/2/1686263/-WH-correspondent-cronies-Native-Indians-should-go-back-to-your-country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.217.210 ( talk) 07:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the "conspiracy theorist" from the intro sentence, as:
1. There's no citation provided, and no discussion at all in the body of the articles about what "conspiracy theories" he promotes or how central that is to his work.
2. Using such a label (especially without citation) in the intro is highly prejudicial, and I don't think it's appropriate if the promotion of conspiracy theories is not a primary thing that the person is known for. I would want to see multiple reliable sources which referred to him in such a manner.
Incidentally, even if he does believe in one, or a few, conspiracy theories (as many people do), the "conspiracy theorist" label would not be appropriate unless promotion of said theories was one of the person's primary claims to fame. - 2003:CA:83C8:2300:1C5F:80CE:1A06:A8E7 ( talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Please only add reliable third-party sources where Wintrich is mentioned. This article is about Wintrich, not Gateway Pundit. Our readers will be able to click on the wikilink. Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "alt-right" should appear in the lede, but in the body of the text. I moved it to the body of the text, but it was added to the lede again by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, without consensus. The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the text, yet it does not appear there now (only in the lede)... Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
. Not sure what you are reading to arrive at this conclusion. WP:TALKDONTREVERT (which links to the heading "consensus building in talk-pages") as well as the rest of the consensus policy page refers to consensus building as a form of dispute mediation and contains no partiality concerning whether or not the dispute concerns an inclusion or removal of content. You might be thinking of BLP violation policies, but these do not apply here, as no unsourced, poorly sourced defamatory or potentially libelous content is under dispute. Edaham ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)"We only need consensus for inclusion, not for removal of content"
You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that robust citations in a lede section of a BLP are "undue". Maybe take a look at some opinions in the essay Wikipedia:Citation_underkill. That's about as deep as we need go into a discussion of policy on this talk page. The issue, including consensus seems to have been resolved for the most part. I agree with and I'll definitely consider how to expand on the event in the career section of the body. Thanks for collaborating and happy editing. Have a great day. Edaham ( talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Wintrich has been described as alt-right and formerly identified himself with the movement, but has since rejected and distanced himself from it.The current version by Masterknighted is unacceptable because it states, as fact, that Wintrich is no longer identified by anyone as alt-right —
was formerly identified with the movement. This is not reflected by reliable sources, including academic sources such as Project Censored, which currently identify Wintrich as alt-right, his personal denials notwithstanding. Therefore, the NPOV wording is to state that he has been identified with the movement, attribute his rejection and allow readers to decide where the truth lies. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
What a bunch of hot air either he said he was alt-right or he did not - Masterknighted ( talk) 19:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Lucian Wintrich, of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit, told me that, last year, the term alt-right “was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become of establishment conservatism.” Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.”This is factual and cited. The source clearly says that Wintrich counted himself as part of the alt-right at one time, but has since rejected it - so that's what the lede says. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Dear Wikipedia,
I am the director of Artists For Trump Coalition. First, I want to commend Wikipedia for offering knowledge to the world and to attempt to do so in a unbiased manner. This is a noble mission.
However I do have a very important correction to bring to your attention. Our group (AFTC) orchestrated the first pro-Trump art exhibition. Furthermore we appear to be the only organic coalition of artists for Trump.
Political commentator Lucian Wintrich has been credited with organizing the first pro-Trump art exhibition on your website Wikipedia. This is factually incorrect.
/info/en/?search=Lucian_Wintrich
Every art exhibition has a life cycle of several stages. Professionals with a deep curatorial understanding know this. If you consider both exhibitions from a holistic point of view, AFTC was without a doubt first.
The AFTC open call began August 4th 2016. This is a documented fact with multiple third party verifications. This all happened weeks before Wintrich even began organizing his show.
Wintrichs’ talk of using interns, suggests Breitbart may have done more than just cover his story. This brings a question of authenticity to the Wintrich show. If the Wintrich show was part of the Breitbart / Brad Parscale Trump advertising campaign, flush with millions of dollars and not open to the public, this would further delegitimize the Wintrich claim.
Artist For Trump Coalition was an grass roots creation. The real thing. I should know, I paid for it myself with my own time building the website and $300 for an open call (open to the public) ad.
Regardless, the AFTC open call was August 4th and this was weeks before anything from Wintrich. Viewed from this perspective, AFTC should be receiving the first trump exhibition title.
I ask that you correct this information on your website and give AFTC its due credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.239.25 ( talk) 08:37, December 22, 2017
The Wintrich article has been changed to specify that the claim of "first pro-Trump art show in the nation's history" was a claim of Wintrich's, as reported by David Freedlander of The Daily Beast. [1] The Wikipedia article had previously stated erroneously that Wintrich's art exhibit was "considered to have been" the first pro-Trump art show, without stating who it was, who had "considered" it so (Wintrich himself). Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I reverted the recent additions via this edit: [1]; my rationale was: "Revert non-neutral changes by a SPA; also at User_talk:Onemorecupofcoffeetilligo#Lucian_Wintrich". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)