This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Posobiec article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
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.
In my opinion, considering that many other Wikipedia articles have similar sections about such allegations, I see no problem with including it here. As long as we make it clear they are theorized and not yet fully substantiated. That being said, McBeth's video is well-argued. NoveosRepublic (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be written as "it has been alleged that Posobiec runs the far-right twitter account...", while making it clear that they are still allegations. Possibly include it below the other confirmed activities Posobiec engages in, signifying less weight on it as it's not yet confirmed. Risith (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is End Wokeness a far-right account? To me, it just looks like the typical pandering right-leaning Twitter account. I only ask because I think using concise language is appropriate what describing allegations. NoveosRepublic (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posobiec is already mentioned to be an alt-right activist in the article - some of the posts on the account do exhibit this behavior. The Guardian again cites the independent research alleging posobiec to run the account, alongside calling him an alt-right extremist activist (as classified by the Southern Poverty Law Centre) with neo-nazi connections. This was stemming from the hate for the casting of Halle Bailey as the lead actress in disney's modern The Little Mermaid. Risith (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Accusations that "all (editors of this article|people who disagree with me) are [political slant]" or "all [politically slanted] sources are bad" are not productive. If you have concerns about the content of this article, please suggest specific, sourced changes. If you have concerns with the general reliability of a publication, take it to WP:RSN. If you believe that a specific editor is systematically POV-pushing, consider dispute resolution venues like WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. You need to say what you want to change and how. For all we know, you could be from the extreme left or extrem right and just be complaining about the article not conforming to your opinion (as usual). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is has extreme left wing slant and uses many left wing communist and marxist dog whistles.
Posobiec was employed by One America News Network (OANN), a far-right cable channel, as a political correspondent and on-air presenter. < Alt right is another term coined by communists and marxists to red flag anyone to the right of them.
This shows left wing extremism by the writers of these articles and wikipedia which violates the rules regarding unbiased articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be UNBIASED and FACTUAL. When the writers of an article and maintainers of wikipedia are left wing and force articles to be left wing, this violates the intention and design of the platform.
I think this is the articulation that the individual would be referring to.
I agree that the editors are being fast and loose with the facts here, most likely due to the kind of political bias Wikipedia claims not to have. The subject is listed as “alt-right” in the first sentence, and the first sentence of the “alt-right” page mentions white nationalism. Yet the subject has apparently publicly announced any association with white nationalism. I suppose that doesn’t stop Wikipedia from being quick to slander him.
Those statements are all sourced to reliable sources. A source is deemed reliable if they are known for checking facts and not known for lying a lot and refusing to correct false statements. Being accused of being "left wing" by unreliable sources (those who lie a lot and refuse to correct false statements) or by anonymous people on the internet, like you, does not make a source unreliable or a statement false. Read argumentum ad hominem and WP:BIASED. If you want to convince people that there is something wrong with the article, you need to do much, much better. You sound like someone who has a false belief, is confronted with someone who is correct, and immediately starts attacking that someone instead of using valid reasoning or rethinking their own position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are these reliable sources on the left or on the right, according to many media bias checks? The problem is when all the information provided as "reliable sources" are from one side of the political spectrum that creates an unbalanced article.
This is a common occurrence on Wikipedia where when you try to correct errors, leftists come out of the woodwork to defend their communist position.
One of the many reasons Wikipedia is banned as a valid source of information in colleges and universities is the editors cherry pick their information sources to support their narrative. This is a problem. If we were to take a look at the sources of this article we would find many of these sources are predominantly from a single side of the political spectrum.
How about this: let's verify the sources that are provided and if the information sourced is from a single side of the political spectrum to analyze the validity of the information being provided. Let us look at the authors of the information and verify if these authors are unbiased. You will find if you look that these authors operate on a single side of the spectrum.
Furthermore, using the subject of this article as a source material the last I checked was not allowed to be done on wikipedia. Many of the sources include links to the subjects own books.
Just because one says something is a reliable source does not make it a valid source to use. For example the southern Law poverty center is a communist organization that labels regular conservatism as extreme far right. IF that is a measure of balanced.. They label common sense as far right. This seems not to generate some questions in using them as a valid source I don't know what to tell you. Why is it if someone is against the LGBTQS++++ agenda they are automatically far right if they disagree with illogical conclusions that stem from communism?
The term FAR Right was coined by communists to label anything that does not align with their ideology as extremism. This is a danger to balanced articles.
Luckily, we produce our articles based on wikipedia policy and guidelines, rather than the unsourced rantings of a far-right, anonymous wikipedia editor such as yourself. WalterEgo18:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a majority of articles and the authors of these articles from one political side of the sphere, how can we have a properly balanced article? This is what I'm talking about. This is why Wikipedia has been nulled as a valid source of information in most places of education as it's as many of the articles do not have a balanced narrative.
How can we have have balanced narrative in an article when it uses spurious claims based on organizations such as SLPC who have a history of making spurious claims about individuals? This is just facts in evidence.
For the record, I never attacked anyone personally, I attacked an ideology, and organizations that operate within that ideology, I never made a personal attack on any one individual editor.
The problem is when all the information provided as "reliable sources" are from one side of the political spectrum Yes, it is a problem that most right-wing sources are lying their asses off so we can only rely on the non-right-wing ones. But we cannot solve that problem on this talk page or even within Wikipedia. Therefore, this is off-topic and does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the bias that we are referring to. To arbitrarily state this: "Yes, it is a problem that most right-wing sources are lying their asses off so we can only rely on the non-right-wing ones." This is what the OP of this thread was poorly articulating. Mjp1976 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
