This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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 sourcedmust 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 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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
I have added these two tags until a broad range of issues are addressed; there seems to be an insistence on including potentially libelous claims in this BLP as facts without attribution, contravening the relevant WP guideline: [1]. Furthermore, controversies are given overwhelming prominency, to the point of obscuring his actual life, contravening MOS:LEDEBIO. Please note that this article falls under WP:BLP, which "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've just put a template up that states This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.. Are you sure that was the one you meant? At present there are 77 sources in the Reference section. That's 77 more than none. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go through and strip this article if you like, as per above comment? It's been discussed/proposed before, but the "liberal" approach (and lack of consensus) was to leave a lot of a poorly sourced content unfortunately. Now that certain opponents to this seem quiet, it wouldn't be a bad time. I'm all in. Needs consensus on whether just the material sourced with no discussion over reliability is removed, or whether also marginally reliable sources as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per previous disagreement, I've restructured the lead to create an MOS:OPEN, as opposed to having simply a MOS:FIRST sentence as the open, per MOS:OPENPARABIO. A few points to break down why this is better WP:NPOV (as well as an obviously better OPEN):
The second sentence, He is known for his support of Vladimir Putin in the Russo-Ukrainian War, and for his anti-Israel views in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war., is completely neutral and helps "explain why the person is notable"
Third sentence, Hinkle has been described as far-right, right-wing, and conservative; and is a proponent of "MAGA communism", calling on those who support the working class to ally with the MAGA movement., this is again ideal NPOV; documenting how RS describe Hinkle to provide context, as well as how he describes himself/his beliefs.
The fourth and fifth sentence, help to supply "the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
That leaves everything controversial in the second paragraph. My only concern is that this OPEN doesn't "reflect the balance of reliable sources.", even if the second and third sentences arguably do. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per MOS:LEDE the lede is ideally four paragraphs, which is a guideline put in place to avoid situations like this, where information can appear to be highlighted or prioritized over other information. I don't disagree with the sentence regarding his support for Putin or otherwise. But I don't think that's why he is notable. He is known for that; just as Biden is known for being a Zionist, but he is not notable for it. Also just as Trump is known to be pro-Hitler and pro-Putin. Hinkle is notable for having a social media following and an online presence; not for being pro-Putin/anti-Israel/etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead isn't ideally four paragraphs, have no idea where you got that idea from, it's based on the length of the article. At 2,545 2,416 words, the appropriate length is one or two paragraphs, bordering on two or three, hence two is clearly appropriate.
Why you think he's notable, or I, or Hinkle, is irrelevant here. It's about why RS believe he is notable. His notability (again, based on RS) is not for his social media following alone, but for spreading misinformation and disinformation with it, which is precisely why I had structured the lead differently to reflect this. It's not possible to sanitise his notability as simply his social media presence, without the controversies surrounding it, that would obviously be complete whitewashing and breach NPOV. It's refreshing to hear you agree that it's his social media presence that makes him notable to be honest, as this was previously how the lead was structured. This is why the change I made is the compromise here; specifying what he is known for, but avoiding his notability over social media controversies. For example, do you have a single reliable source documenting his notable social media following, without the controversies that surround it? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the guideline of "identify the topic ... without being too specific" for the opening paragraph, which the second sentence does well; he's known for his views, but it doesn't specify how he is known for them, ie via social media. This information is saved for the second paragraph, to encourage further reading. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article was long enough to warrant four lede paragraphs. Anyway, Jordan Peterson is known for his support for Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israel-Hamas war, for his anti-Palestine views (namely his genocidal comment "finish them"), and for being frequently cited by Islamist media; I don't see that highlighted in his article, let alone in his opening paragraph. I frankly couldn't care less about a far-right wing idiot's WP page, but seeing how pro-western idiots are treated as human beings whose actual lives are highlighted, and anti-western idiots whose controversies are highlighted in hit pieces, this can't be NPOV in any way. This is being written from a western POV since Putin isn't a western ally; while Israel is a western ally; which frankly doesn't matter to anyone reading the biography of Hinkle. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comparison to Peterson, that's comparing apples to oranges. For starters, Peterson has a well-documented career, so his notability naturally isn't going to be genocidal comments. Baring in mind the lead is based on weight of RS etc. As for NPOV, you might of misunderstood what this means, as it certainly doesn't mean neutrality: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Where are all the reliable sources from non-Western media to include for Hinkle? They are almost non-existent bar one, so of course there will be a Western POV from RS, and that must be reflected based on NPOV: fairly represents all the significant views. It'd be more relevant to consider why there aren't non-Western sources for Hinkle...
Personally, I think it's because Pro-Palestinians couldn't give a damn about self-serving far-right grifters that spread misinformation and disinformation. They do more harm than good for their cause, only helping to legitimise the conspiracy theories such as Pallywood. I also don't think Russia/Russians care for their mouthpieces, even if there were reliable sources to include. So which RS' are going to be talking positively about Hinkle? Virtually none. It should otherwise be obvious to the reader that nearly all Western Wikipedia articles will have a bias towards the West, based of use and weight of reliable sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Israelis either couldn't give a damn about self-serving far-right evangelicals either that spread misinformation, disinformation and legitimize religious conspiracy theories such as building the Third Temple. And no, it is not obvious to the reader that English WP articles have a bias towards the west. Western sources do not have to be biased by definition, nor are non-western sources. That's the thing, western sources have been recently increasingly under the impression that they have a monopoly on truth, epitome of which is the idea of community notes on X and sometimes the abuse of it. And now the possible banning of tiktok. And also labelling RT for example as state media, as if the NYT is that different. Anyway, aside from these rants, which are inappropriate here, my overarching point is that highlighting his foreign policy anti-western positions in the opening paragraph as if they are so important to his notability is misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also fyi, regarding the anti-Israel claim in the opening paragraph sourced by the Jewish Chronicle: "There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics." and also as previously mentioned about the Rolling Stones requiring attribution when talking about BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed cites from first two sentences, as there is no need per MOS:LEADCITE. The second sentence is well-documented in the body (not just by JC), but by Bloomberg, Guardian, Mother Jones, The Times, Financial Times, and others. JC is attributed in the body, but will check for other contentious uses. Will work on adding more attribution where required as I notice it's missing for Mother Jones, and I imagine some other sources as well, hopefully that will help. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't change anything. Which RS that does not require attribution has described Hinkle as "anti-Israel"? Which RS has described Hinkle explicitly as "pro-Putin in the Ukrainian-Russian war"? This is definitely original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"anti-Israel content" in a newsletter isn't meeting the BLP standards really, nor why he is notable. The rest of the sources still require attribution and/or do not explicitly support the claim made. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Bloomberg source say as it is behind a paywall?
It is a strong word to call sources that are not considered reliable by WP to be RS; and that all of them making this explicit claim are required to be attributed. Not sure how the comment by one RS that he posts "anti-Israel content" makes him hold an "anti-Israel position" that is so prominent and so important to be included in the very first sentences about his entire life. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He "made the extraordinary claim that Israel had lied about the Oct. 7 attacks, citing the reporting of Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which swiftly debunked the lie", really? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, now we have a proper RS. Now after having flipped the internet trying to find one, the self-evident question is why is this so important to be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flipped the internet? Read the body more like, that source was there all along 🙄 The reason it's in the MOS:OPENPARABIO is due to MOS: establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. If you hadn't noticed, most of the body/RS is based on his anti-Israel views. This is the more neutral version than "spreading misinformation and disinformation", which equally reflects the balance of reliable sources. Please read WP:NOTGETTINGIT. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of restoring the cites for claims that Makeandtoss has challenged, because per WP:LEADCITE, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Llll5032 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was there all along or not is irrelevant to the fact that we were discussing on the talk page the verifiability of this claim, where this RS was not presented. One RS does not "reflect that balance of RS" to the point of determining this is so notable to deserve mention in the opening paragraph. Ways to resolve disagreements on the talk page is through consensus, the next step would be an RFC; not an accusation of "not getting it". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one RS, it's multiple as referenced in lead, not forgetting others such as ADL, Jewish Chronicle, Mother Jones and Rolling Stone. Those are the ones you "wanted" that don't "require" in-text attribution, even though I previously tried to explain that attribution is only for a source's claim that is independent from other sources (which isn't the case here). If you read WP:INTEXT"a source's words", it's singular not plural, ie not intended for when there are multiple sources. This is why you don't see "According to W, X, Y and Z" in other articles, because it's not necessary to attribute when multiple reliable sources are making the same statement.
My point of not getting it is that you are the only contributor that holds these viewpoints, while there is otherwise consensus (past and present) that Hinkle being anti-Israel is very much due. The next step for you would be an RfC if you still disagree with consensus. There has already been enough unnecessary changes to sources in an attempt to satisfy your concerns, we don't need to open an RfC for you. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADL: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."
Jewish Chronicle: "The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics."
Mother Jones: "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article."
Rolling Stone: "Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution."
WP:STONEWALL "An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines."
WP:CON: consensus is addressing "editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"
WP:RFC: "Because Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, an RfC can act as a dispute resolution."
Consensus is reached by all editors while relying on RS and WP guidelines; consensus is not reached by ignoring them. Consensus is not reached by making inflammatory comments towards editors who are concerned that WP guidelines are being ignored to push a POV to the top of a BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misinterpretation of WP:CON: Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable) nor is the result of a vote.. The compromise of removing the "spreading of misinformation and disinformation" from the WP:OPEN has already been made, as well as change of sources. I'm otherwise not disputing the content here. Hence my point is if you have a dispute, then sure, open an RfC to resolve the dispute you have with the content, as I'm pretty confident that "anti-Israel" will remain in the OPEN, mainly because it's far from biased or a POV when this is how Hinkle identifies. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who claimed that consensus is reached through result of a vote by saying I was the only opposing editor vs two allegedly supportive ones. Please do not treat following WP guidelines in relation to opening paragraphs and BLPs as a compromise. It is mandatory to follow WP guidelines, not a choice. Since I am opposing the inclusion of this material and you are supporting it, the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability and open a RFC.
Douglas Murray (author) a racist political commentator doesn't have (rightly) being Islamophobic and anti-Palestine on his opening paragraph, but elsewhere in the lede and only for the former. Nor do Jordan Peterson, or Ben Shapiro, who are not only racist, but made genocidal statements, have any similar such designations in the entire lede, let alone in their opening paragraph. Again, each WP article must be treated on its own merits, but there is clearly no reason to ignore WP guidelines in this specific article just because they go against western foreign policy positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above "(rightly)"; we should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions; and more particularly for people who have anti-western foreign policy positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson's entire notability is based on being an anti-Islam campaigner as per the RS cited. Hinkle's notability centers on his social media presence. His pro-Russia and China positions are even more prominent feature of his than being anti-Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FIRSTBIO: "The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." All we have here is one high quality RS: the DW source. I suggest you find similar multiple high quality RS, or open an RFC to seek other opinions if you want to insist on including this contentious material in the opening paragraph of a BLP. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, to clarify, we should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions is your opinion not policy then? Hard to get a straight answer here. Obviously there are 8+ reliable sources describing Hinkle as anti-Israel, but let's ignore them for now. I'm not insisting on having anti-Israel in the open, as it's already there, so again no dispute from me here. For clarification sake, I'll let you know if I have a dispute with the content, otherwise you're free to assume I don't, hope that clarifies things 👍CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not define people in their opening paragraphs based on their political positions is my opinion based on the MOS:FIRSTBIO policy of reflecting the balance of reliable sources and the WP:BLP policy of higher standards for BLP. So far we have only one RS which is DW; the rest are either unreliable or need attribution; which clearly does not reflect balance of RS to be described in WP voice. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this is a dead end, so you're more than welcome to open an RFC to see other opinions about the insertion of this disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources template, thought it'd be worth looking at the Russian sources used in this article. While Russian sources can be reliable, given the issue with Russian state-owned media and propraganda, I thought it's worth taking a second look.
With all due respect, I don't think that was a good idea.
I just looked through the currently cited sources, and I don't see any in Russian. It appears that you have removed them all. Even if I missed one or two, you have removed nearly all of them. I don't think removing all sources from an article based on the language they are written in improves the article. On the contrary.
Furthermore, I'm concerned about your stated reasons for removing them.
The fact that a source is owned, in whole or in part, or influenced by a government is not a prima facie reason to remove its content. Wikipedia widely cites sources that are owned, controlled, or influenced by governments. And it should. State-owned & state-influenced media from around the world can and does contain valuable, factually accurate information that may be interesting or educational to readers. State media should definitely be attributed, so that readers are made aware of the source. But the source should not be removed simply because it is owned by a state.
Are the other two sources useful? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think the logic you present here is persuasive enough to warrant their complete removal.
The most important factor in answering the question "are they useful?" is the context in which Jackson Hinkle is discussed in the source. Are novel, contentious, factual claims being made about him? Are opinions about him being offered? To understand the context, one would have to read the article, translated if necessary, but ideally in the original Russian.
You make no mention of the content of the article, instead dismissing it out of hand because you personally don't know enough about the outlets to trust them. The solution to that is simple: if they are offering opinion commentary, you don't need to trust them, because you don't have to agree with an opinion for it to be notable. If they are making factual claims, you also don't need to trust them: attribute those claims to their publisher with in-text attribution, so that the reader is aware that these are claims, not solid facts.
I'm sorry if it feels like I am being harsh. I do not doubt your sincerity, good faith, or your desire to improve the article for readers.
Even more notably than this single editorial decision on your part, the complete lack of pushback against it from other editors over the past 3 weeks is a good illustration of the POV problems with this article. For that reason and others, I support the neutrality template remaining on this page until a much more thorough talk page discussion takes place. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His role in a single low budget ($100 USD) short film with the production quality of a homemade movie does not constitute the title of "actor". The fact that he has an IMDB page does not lend him anymore credibility than having an account on any publicly registerable social media platform would. 97.122.113.215 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
