Talk:Jackson Hinkle

Russian sources

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.

• https://inosmi.ru/20230728/zelenskiy-264680628.html (archive) - inoSMI is part of WP:RUSSIATODAY [1]
• https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2023920335-7oknx.html - Zvezda (TV channel) is owned by the Russian Ministry of Defence
• https://ria.ru/20231007/zhurnalist-1901096337.html (archive) - RIA Novosti - Russian state-owned media company
• https://smotrim.ru/video/2569438 - Rossiya 1 (Russia-1) is run by state-owned VGTRK [2]
• https://www.starhit.ru/novosti/amerikanskii-zhenikh-miss-rossii-anny-linnikovoi-priekhal-k-nei-i-priznalsya-v-lyubvi-rf-909864/ - is part of Hearst Shkulev Media and a private Russian company, though I get the impression it's an unreliable tabloid, clue: "Star Hit"
• https://56orb.ru/news/2023-12-16/miss-rossiya-orenburzhenka-anna-linnikova-porvala-s-amerikantsem-i-vozvraschaetsya-domoy-3130531 - couldn't find out any info about this media outlet, but based on the above, very likely to be unreliable/tabloid/both.

Going to go ahead and remove these sources and their content. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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."

Yes. Thank you. I'd even go so far as to say that sources that are under constant surveillance and control by the apparatus of a state - in other words, like this very article - should not necessarily be removed. In any case, what citizen encyclopedist has enough time on their hands to do the policing? We just need to read between the lines. Lestrad (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

actor

Jackson Hinkle should also be described as an actor. he is credited with two roles, one is a short film where he plays a fictional character. see the IMDB profile here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13780348/ 69.113.236.26 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

NPOV template

Have all NPOV issues been resolved? Is it okay to remove the template from the top of the article? BeŻet (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to think @Makeandtoss and I have a better understanding these days, at least that's the impression I get but could be mistaken. Ultimately it's up to them as the editor who placed the POV template as to whether issues have been resolved or not. Personally I have no issue with the change of "anti-Israel" to "opposition to Israel". They are essentially the same thing, especially given the former is now a redirect to a dab page, rather than directly to anti-Zionist. I wouldn't describe Hinkle as being part of the Anti-Israel lobby though, he's more generically anti-Zionist based on self-published sources, hence I converted the wiki-link to the wording in question. CNC (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, let's wait for them to see what they think. BeŻet (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not mistaken, but only due to personal reasons of mine that we did not have a good one before. I do not object to the tag's removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving another NPOV issue, I strongly recommend removing from the bio on the right side of the page, under the heading "Known for," the entries "online misinformation" and "disinformation." Any claim that Hinkle has engaged in said activities can be discussed in the text, with appropriate citing and references, so the readers can judge for themselves. Neither Wikipedia nor the government is not the arbiter of what is, or is not, the truth. Claiming that someone is "known for" "misinformation" or "disinformation" is not an objective statement, but an opinion that essentially calls someone a liar. Cite the actual controversies themselves in the body of the article and let the reader judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.164.170 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am replying to my own original unsigned comment in order to make it clear that it is in fact my comment. Effectively, I am signing the above comment. A.G.Phillbin (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why this article exists, because of his WP:SIGCOV regarding misinformation that gained Hinkle WP:GNG, otherwise the delete discussion would have easily gone the other way. The infobox is merely a summary of the body. Nobody is calling Hinkle a liar, only that he spreads misinformation and is also best known for doing so based on WP:RS coverage. CNC (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This answers nothing. I'm not asking you to delete the entire article, only the reference in the bio box in the upper right corner that says he is "known for "online misinformation" and "disinformation." NO ONE should be tagged in this way; it is entirely POV. You can write up any falsehood claims mase about a subject in the body of the article, with appropriate references. Let the readers decide for themselves what is, or is not, "disinformation" or "misinformation." Are you claiming that these two descriptions are objectively true? On what basis do you make this claim? A.G.Phillbin (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of the body. We don't decide what should and shouldn't be there based on WP:POV, but merely include summary information. Multiple reliable sources in the body document his history in spreading misinformation and disinformation. It's irrelevant whether it's the WP:TRUTH or not. CNC (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Fake news"?

"In October 2023, Hinkle shared a fake news release stating that the United States was sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel." By what stretch of imagination and bad faith is that not true? Since when is the US not sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel? Can the truth be "fake news"? Lestrad (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the source, Hinkle shared what was claimed to be a White House news release. It was the news release that was fake. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)