Talk:Dave Smith (comedian)

"AnCap Dave Smith" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect AnCap Dave Smith and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#AnCap Dave Smith until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In the "political views" section

When you write this sentence "THE WHITE NATIONALIST Nick Fuentes, THE WHITE SUPREMASIST Richard Spencer, and THE NEO-NAZI Christopher Cantwell."

It appears to resemble name-calling (which does not sound like the tone Wikipedia is about).

To say "Smith has been noted for interviews with far-right figures such as Gavin McInnes, Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer, and Christopher Cantwell." is much more encyclopedic and concise in my view.

Anybody interested in learning more about these people can click on the wikilinks. Thank you very much! Riverbend21 (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Specific descriptions of Fuentes, Spencer, and Cantwell were in stable text before some recent edits including yours [1][2][3]. They were originally added in July of 2022 by Saxones288 and have been edited by other editors including me. The cited reliable sources' writing focuses on those ideologies [4][5][6]. The descriptions also match descriptions at the top of the Wikipedia articles about each person. The WP:CLARIFY essay says articles should Use specific wording rather than vague whenever possible, and WP:BLPSTYLE says that article tone should avoid "both understatement and overstatement" to document "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". I agree about removing some repeated words, but specificity should be preserved unless a Wikipedia policy recommends removal. Can you cite such a policy, or restore the descriptions? Llll5032 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Any additional details about those figures that are not immediately related to Smith himself can be found in the relevant articles about them via their wikilinks which are appropriately already included. These figures are already described as "far-right figures" as mentioned in the sources that are still all correctly cited. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia policy for that viewpoint? Another policy that encourages encyclopedic context is WP:NOTDATABASE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." WP:PCR recommends that editors "Provide context for the reader" and "explain the subject fully". Llll5032 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the same policy you cite WP:PCR I believe "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." We must read that section to understand that the policy is referring to the subject and not to all secondary or tertiary figures. Those figures have their own articles and are the subjects of those articles, thus wikilinking to them is more than sufficient for the purposes of this article. Riverbend21 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines encourage specifics, relevant context, and following the focuses of the best available sources. WP:PCR does not make the distinction that you made, nor does it bold the text, nor does it say links should substitute for context, so I don't see how we could interpret it to say what you wrote. Perhaps other editors will clarify if there was consensus for removing those descriptions. Llll5032 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)