Talk:Jackson Hinkle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Help in regards to image for Jackson would be good

Help in finding image for page would be good. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The current image I think is perfect. The one of him making a weird face should not be used in my opinion. Alleycat1995 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Need new one Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hinkle meets the notability

Article uses multiple reliable secondary sources, Hinkle is mentioned as a prominent social media influencer by CNN, a popular communist political commentator by Compact Magazine, went on Tucker Carlson’s show (before Tucker was fired) and was mentioned as host of the Dive. And furthermore he has a larger twitter following than other influencers like Hassan Piker. Also he has led real world rallies like the Rage Against the War Machine Rally and has gone on RT number of times, he has been cited by Iranian state affiliated media, furthermore a long trail of information and notable reporting on his political career date back far before the present to his career in San Clemente politics and running for city office there, with publications such as the San Clemente Times reporting on his fiery sometimes controversial political campaign. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sumanuil please reply here before just going out on a limb with short 4 word statement reversals Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Idk I’m torn. This guy is clearly just a fraud maximizing his short term profile. Last year on Twitter he was celebrating Netanyahu, now he is a Marxist-Leninist? On the other hand, I have seen claims he is the most influential account (in views) on X nowadays… Crazy times. So I suppose I’d lean towards notable. Euor (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

He’s never praised Netyanahu lmao. That’s like saying Hamas has praised Netyanahu… just because they preferred him because he unintentionally helped them strategically (Ie distanced Israel from liberal world to extent, he worked with them on some prisoner exchanges, he destabilized Israel with political reforms, etc). Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Internet is forever my dude. The guy is a certified grifter par excellence.--Euor (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay? Hamas also favors netyanahu because he distanced Israel from the liberal international order and destabilizes Israel. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2019/03/hamas-gaza-israel-elections-netanyahu-army.html Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

He is most certainly notable, and an AfD attempt on (specifically) grounds of non-notability would almost certainly fail (well, assuming editors evaluating it had access to all the facts). Off the top of my head, there's the recent Jewish Chronicle article entirely about him (linked below by someone else), a couple Hebrew-language articles in major Israeli outlets, and he's featured prominently in the InfoEpi report I linked somewhere below. I would also consider the Vice report to be significant coverage. There's also the early reports in mostly LA-local media (though also a Teen Vogue appearance) of his activism as an environmentalist. His ideology, however farcical as it may seem, has nothing to do with his notability... not per se anyway, after all it is a topic in the Vice article. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

References

MAGA Communism

I have added a "MAGA Communism" section but am looking to split it after more reliable sources publish information about it. Thoughts? Alleycat1995 (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry hadn't seen this until after my edit removing some of it. It's simply not about Hinkle, but it might be worth creating a new article and taking the material I deleted there. Could use a sandbox or draft to start it while looking for more sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Quick look for sources, and it's not looking good.

RS:

• Echols, William (9 March 2023). "Misleading: Chinese State Media Depict Pro-Russia Rally as 'Real Voices' of American People". POLYGRAPH.info. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

Probably RS:

• Florio, Gina (25 July 2023). "Jonah Hill's Ex-Girlfriend Revenge Leaks Private Information About Another Ex-Boyfriend, Labeling Him A "MAGA Communist"". Evie Magazine. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• "Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI): Increasing the Fog of War between Israel and Hamas". ADL. 30 October 2023. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

Possibly RS:

• Young, Cathy (19 October 2023). "Rush to Judgment and Bias on Gaza Hospital Story". The Bulwark. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

Probably not RS:

• "Broad front or false front?". Canadian Dimension. 22 February 2023. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Gallagher, Graham (25 November 2022). "Elite Conservatives Have Taken an Awfully Weird Turn". The New Republic. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• "Dungeons and Dugin: How an Alliance of Authoritarians Hopes to Destroy a Politics of Solidarity". It's Going Down. 14 March 2023. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Ericson, Sean (19 March 2023). "Ericson: The persistence of a conspiracy cult". The Minnesota Daily. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What are these sources for? Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They are all the uses of the term MAGA communism and its variants from sources listed at Google News, minus the ones in definitely non-RS sources.

Most of them only use the term in passing, usually as a description for Hinkle, which strengthens the argument for a redirect here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I started with having MAGA Communism be a separate article, and it was suggested to merge it with the Jackson Hinkle article. MAGA Communism is relevant to Jackson Hinkle because it is the movement he belongs to. Alleycat1995 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually The New Republic is designated as "RS, yet biased" by RSPS. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I had originally written an article about MAGA Communism and it was suggested to have it be a merged with this page for now. MAGA Communism is the movement Jackson Hinkle has helped to create and lead and providing more details about that movement is relevant to Jackson Hinkle. Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

All the RSs I could find:

• Novak, Matt (29 October 2023). "Elon Musk Says X Users Spreading Lies Won't Get Paid For Those Tweets". Forbes. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Klee, Miles; Klee, Miles (19 October 2023). "MAGA Influencers Tearing Each Other Apart Over Israel-Hamas War". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Norton, Tom (31 July 2023). "Fact Check: Did Tokyo billboard show "Stop War, Stop Zelensky"?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Liles, Jordan (30 May 2023). "Did Lindsey Graham Say, 'The Russians Are Dying". Snopes. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Bharathi, Vartha (7 October 2023). "Fact-Check: Viral videos falsely attributed to Israel-Palestine conflict, debunked". Vartha Bharathi. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• "Russian disinfo on social media: "Zelenskyy and western embassies fled Kyiv, US sabotaged Nord Stream"". Euromaidan Press. 3 November 2022. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Atienza, Elias (18 August 2023). "FACT CHECK: Image Claims To Show Niger Militant Promising To Go To Ukraine". Check Your Fact. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

An actual news source: https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-is-jackson-hinkle-twitters-most-viral-misinformation-spreader-and-anti-israel-activist-3Zi4QV3sKIShrzZ6RHff9E BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

The Forbes article describes Hinkle as "right-wing", however, the article says he is a "Marxist-Leninist", which is far-left. How should we deal with this? Alleycat1995 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And another describes him as "far-right" and another as "far-left". Is this related to horseshoe theory? Alleycat1995 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s because they haven’t looked that much into MAGACommunism and believer translates into domestic Republican politics rather than seeing potential and growing class consciousness among the base known as MAGA supporters.

If you look at his social views he’s very down the line neutral, doesn’t care about culture war issues such as abortion etc. he does push back against the like what he calls “woke culture” but not to extent he could be called right wing or far right. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Original research is not what Wikipedia articles are built on. VintageVernacular (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok bro just saying what Compact magazine one of the only sources to actually dive into it, says about it… if that’s original research Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The American compact Magazine (United States) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that we steer clear of any definitive labels for him, and simply state that he has been simultaneously described as both far-left and far-right, melding both Marxism-Leninism with MAGA politics. — Czello ^(music) 09:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I worry that would make things even more convoluted. Can we just say "MAGA Communist"? Alleycat1995 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that, as far as I can tell, "MAGA communism" isn't really an accepted ideology outside of a few fringe individuals like Hinkle. Do the sources unanimously call him as such, or is it a mix between "MAGA communist, "Marxist-Leninist", and "far-right" (and others, I imagine)? Ultimately we just have to reflect what they say. — Czello ^(music) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The neologism "MAGA Communism" was recognized by both Vice and Compact. To answer your question directly, it's not unanimous; however, most of the articles don't focus on "MAGA Communism". However, since some sources call him far-left, others call him far-right, "MAGA Communism" could encompass both sides (as explained in those articles about "MAGA Communism"). Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

He's part of the LaRouche movement, if that helps you all suss this out any more easily. LaRouche was called both far-right and far-left, too, I think. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

He’s not part of the larouche movement, very few sources link him to that, the most extent of his involvement was speaking at one affiliated event against “de-growth” ideology. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the article about that already on the page? Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone who attends conferences at the Schiller Institute, receives promotion in the Executive Intelligence Review, proclaims "LaRouche was right", and promotes books written by LaRouche, isn't part of the LaRouche movement?...

Was just by way of comparison anyhow. See how we cover LaRouche's ideology and that may offer pointers for covering MAGA communism, was what I meant. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fewer call him far right Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Especially since he’s actively against the far right on multiple issues, for example he challenged the “wignats” he attacked Jack Psobiec for racist online signaling, he attacked Fuentes-associate Laura Loomer and even is against Fuentes himself. He calls them losers and weaklings, and says communism not the alt right provide the solution. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen only 1 call him far-left and multiple have called him right-wing, with one calling him far-right. But I also haven't looked over every source yet. From what I've seen so far though, there is not a consensus to whether he is far-left or far-right. Calling him a "MAGA Communist" would circumvent this problem in my opinion. Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How RSs describe his ideology:

• Mostly, leftist critics suggest Haz and Hinkle are just an alt-right spin on “tankie” communism, complete with an embrace of authoritarian MAGA vibes. It’s not surprising that the swirl of social conservatism, patriotism and subversive energy that inform “MAGA Communism” have been criticized as a repackaging of fascist ideals of yore. - Vice[1]
• describes himself as an "American Conservative Marxist-Leninist", amongst other things Jewish Chronicle[2]
• conservative - The Week[3]
• self-described "MAGA Communist” - Polygraph[4]
• a conservative commentator [who previously identified as a "democratic socialist" but] calls himself a MAGA Communist now - Evie[5]
• self-described “MAGA communist” - ADL[6]
• "MAGA communist” (in quote marks, indicating this is how he describes himself) - The Bulwark[7]
• far-Right YouTuber - Varthabharati[8]
• the founder of the American far-left “anti-imperialist” outlet The Dive - Euromaidan Press[9]

Conclusion: He has been described as conservative, far right and far left and calls himself a MAGA Communist and American Conservative Marxist-Leninist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Independent journalist

@Alleycat1995: The claim for "independent journalist" is attributed to an inconspicuous Thailand-based journal. It looks open-access but it's not on DOAJ, and I can't find a single instance where it's cited by others on google scholar. There are no other reliable sources making the claim Hinkle is an independent journalist. — hako9 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The only sources (the Thailand-based journal, and the "Rage Against the War Machine" flyer) I've found that say whether or not Hinkle is an independent journalist refer to him as one. The other sources on google scholar about Jackson don't say either way. But if there's evidence that says he's not independent, then the article must reflect it. Alleycat1995 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to prove a negative. Please read and understand what constitutes a WP:RS. None of those two are reliable. — hako9 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:RS but I don't see any clear violations. Alleycat1995 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No RSs here, we can't call him that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this? Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The source currently used is clearly not RS. It's some kind of Duginist fake academic publication. We can't use this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(It's also a passing mention, and it contradicts every single other reliable source, so it's totally UNDUE.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What is a "Duginist fake academic publication"? From what I've seen from the Asian Research Center, they aren't unreliable. If there are any sources that refer to Hinkle explicitly as not an independent journalist, then it still should not be removed on the basis of WP:THISORTHAT. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential problem in article ("Conspiracy theorist")

Does including that Hinkle is a "conspiracy theorist" as a result of this one source violate WP:EXCEPTIONAL? In my opinion, yes. Thoughts? Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Believe you me, that's not the only source supporting that characterization. But because this article omits countless sources that reference Hinkle, it's the one I referred to in my edit. Here are some more:

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] VintageVernacular (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the sources themselves have to call him a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise, it would be a violation of WP:NOR. Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as Alleycat1995 says, this goes against WP:EXCEPTIONAL. All sources shown by VintageVernacular are weak. Note that CNN does not use the term "conspiracy theorist" and also there is the source "EuromaidanPress" which is a low quality and extremely biased source. Mhorg (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If somebody promotes conspiracy theories, they are straightforwardly a conspiracy theorist. Some of these sources directly either call him a conspiracy theorist, or say he promotes conspiracy theories. Many more go further and say he promotes misinformation or disinformation.

There's also this: [19] but it's not RS for politics (despite this it is, for some reason, selected for use as a source in the article). And this one (a report cited in the NYT recently) says he "has a history of promoting and appearing on Russian state media, spreading misleading claims about events, and casting doubt on specific incidents. [Bucha massacre is given as an example.]"

You say my Euromaidan source is "low quality and extremely biased". But it makes the exact same claims about Hinkle as the Tech Transparency Project. Not to mention I've provided other sources demonstrating that he spreads conspiracy theories (here's some more: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]). This is not some kind of shocking or out-of-character claim. It is precisely, consistently, how he's covered in the media. VintageVernacular (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My perspective is that if the source isn't directly saying he is a conspiracy theorist, then the article shouldn't say that he is because of WP:NOR. Having promoted conspiracy theories is different from being a conspiracy theorist because the latter presupposes that promoting conspiracy theories is the essence of what he does. This isn't what the sources show. The line between the 2 is somewhat blurry but it's better to be more cautious about things like this. Alleycat1995 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Alleycat and Mhorg that we need multiple reliable sources (and not opinion pieces such as the first one in this section) calling him a conspiracy theorist before we call him that in our voice. However, we should give the actual factual details reported by the reliable sources VintageVernacular has listed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about removal

@Patar knight is the removal of this paragraph actually considered "material entirely sourced to self-published material per WP:BLPSPS"? Vice is responsible for this paragraph by publishing something that Hinkle had posted, would this no longer violate WP:BLPSPS? Please let me know if I am wrong.

"On 20 September 2022, Jackson Hinkle shared a list of what MAGA Communists support in a tweet. He writes: "#MAGACOMMUNISM IS FOR: Reindustrialization of America, Dismantle Big Tech, End Foreign Intervention, End Globalist Imperialism, Abolishing CIA/FBI/NSA, Drain DOJ Swamp, Pardon 1/6 Protestors, Pardon Assange/Snowden, Extend Free Speech To Social Media, Land Reforms - Dismantle Big Agriculture, Unite With China On BRI (Belt and Road Initiative), Ban ANTIFA Street Terrorism, Expand Stable, High Yielding Energy Oil/Nuclear, Leave NATO, Mass Infrastructure Program, Declare Major Energy Resources As Public Commodities, Banking In Hands Of People, Economic Bill Of Rights, Cut Military Budget, Protect Second Amendment, Cut Foreign Aid & Democracy Promotion, No Open Borders, Dismantle MIC (Military Industrial Complex), Promote "MADE IN AMERICA" Products, Literacy Movement, Patriotic Education - End Woke Academia, End Subsidization of Monopolies, Remove Red Tape, Subsidize Gyms In Every Community, Lower Taxes, Deport Bush Family, Clinton Family, Obama, Pompeo, Bolton, to ICC (International Criminal Court), Destroy Open Society Foundation, WEF (World Economic Forum), IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank, Gates/Ford/Clinton Foundations, Dismantle Big Pharma, Destroy Duopoly/DC Uniparty, End Debt Slavery, Imprison Opioid/Fentanyl Networks, Protect Minors From Sexualization, Dismantle Secret Societies, CENTCOM (United States Central Command), AFRICOM (United States African Command), Declare NED (National Endowment for Democracy), USAID (United States Agency for International Development) & NAFO (North Atlantic Fella Organization) Terrorist Organizations, and Arrest George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Fauci & All Epstein Associates/Criminals."" Alleycat1995 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Vice simply reproduced it as an example of what Hinkle has posted and did not endorse it as an accurate representation of what "MAGA Communism" actually believes. WP:BLPSPS only somewhat applies, since the material about living people (e.g. Fauci, Gates, Schwab, Obama, etc.) are not claiming to be facts but opinions about the appropriateness of their actions. However, BLP requirements for the high quality sourcing still applies given that the tweet implies those people have committed some sort of wrongdoing, and a tweet that is not discussed by any RS does not meet that standard. The main additional concern is that it is obviously a violation of MOS:QUOTE (which has copyright/legal implications for excessive quotations) and WP:UNDUE, since the tweet itself is not discussed at all in the VICE article or elsewhere. The section already summarizes the main viewpoints and does not require an excessively lengthy and hard to read quotation. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in relation to Hinkle and sourcing - currently, and only from a quick search, I have found the following sources.

Here he is quoted in the JC https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-is-jackson-hinkle-twitters-most-viral-misinformation-spreader-and-anti-israel-activist-3Zi4QV3sKIShrzZ6RHff9E

And here Rolling Stone attributes remarks made by Hinkle https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/israel-hamas-violence-maga-influencer-meltdown-1234857139/

The WP:RSP lists them with the caveat that the term "attributes" is used. Chavmen (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cited by Israeli publications

Re this edit, Solidarityandfreedom can you say which other Israeli publications have cited him, and can you quote how Times of Israel cites him (in particular as a "source of information")? I can only see one illustrative embedded tweet in one publication, not a citation or multiple publications. This is a primary source too, so the claim here in wikivoice is WP:OR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No response so I've removed this again - it's against the manual of style; it's original research; it's a misuse of citation; and there's no basis for the plural. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

All mentions I can find of Hinkle, from the Times of Israel website, are reproductions of (parts of) that article, which embed that same tweet; in none of them is Hinkle mentioned in text. So the edit was incorrect, thanks for removing. DFlhb (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Fake press release

Re this edit, Solidarityandfreedom, you have given no edit summary. Can you explain your reasoning? CNN is the most solid reliable source in the current article. (Removed text: Along with Elon Musk, he posted then deleted a fake press release about US military support for Israel.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The source appeared different for me as a glitch you can re-add for some reason it sent me to a blog. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Long passage on a debate with another social media leftist

Re this edit by Solidarityandfreedom, this paragraph is extremely long and the bits in it about Sedar's opinions are irrelevant in this article about Sedar. It's really not WP:DUE. I also don't think RealClearPolitics is reliable anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) (What RSP says about RealClearPolitics: There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Avoided unless it’s the best source for a certain event. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Idea that Sam Seder is obscure is laughable. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Seder's obscurity is not the issue. The issue is this article isn't about him, so we don't need to go into detail about his opinions. RealClearPolitics could be used if it's "the best source for a certain event", but we need to know the event is noteworthy, and if it's not been mentioned by actual RSs, there's no reason to t think it's noteworthy. I'm not arguing to delete this passage, just to trim it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, RCP is a real source if not pertaining to the 2020 election or similar issues which wiki has found it to be not as credible on. This wouldn’t pertain to this article. Can you show me what you propose the passage to be in the talk page and we can discuss it. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My proposed edit is the one that you reverted in the link at the top of this section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just returning to this as no consensus was reached. Can I propose deleting from “which Seder countered” to the end of the para, ie everything that relates to Seder’s views and not Hinkle’s? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes that seems reasonable. Burrobert (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Team Zissou

@Bobfrombrockley The original source says this: "During his junior year of high school, Jackson decided to start Team Zissou, a school environmental club. Jackson expected maybe a handful of students to show up to the first meeting. Instead, more than 200 came. Team Zissou’s mission came together quickly: Do as much as possible to make a difference for the environment." He was a kid at the time, but he was simply leading other kids. There's more context that shows that Hinkle was the one leading the organization (after all, they decided to write the article on him!) if you need it. On another note, this source says it was his junior year of high school, yet the other source in the article says it was during his sophomore year. What should we do about this? Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess Junior versus sophomore is not that important; we can just say high school. But this might suggest that these are not particularly strong sources. I kind of think that the word guidance is too strong a value judgement to use in our voice, and it’s not the word they use, so I would tone it down. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

- Davide King - Stop engaging in constant edit revisions (explained) [MAGA Communism questions]

RS describes how Communism can be the force of the MAGA movement adding that they hold MAGA represents the largest number of working people thus introducing class politics by marginalizing “identity politics,” it describes the movement as seeing revolutionary potential in MAGA supporters. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I made an edit that hopefully resolves the conflict. All editors are invited to give their view on this:

@Davide King's suggestion is:

"Hinkle is known for his advocacy of MAGA communism, a call for Marxist–Leninists to support the MAGA movement against the status quo and globalism."

@Solidarityandfreedom's suggestion is:

"Hinkle is known for his advocacy of MAGA communism, a call for the MAGA movement to adopt socialist ideas and Marxism-Leninism, adapted to conservatism, seeing revolutionary potential among MAGA supporters."

My attempted resolution is:

"Hinkle is known for his advocacy of MAGA communism, a call for the MAGA movement to adopt socialist ideas against the status quo."

The vice article places a lot of emphasis on synthesis of MAGA and communism/socialism. Here are just 3 examples (more can be provided if needed) from the source where this emphasis is given:

1. "His pitch for the Oct. 1 event: A new ideology of prosperity and working-class unity, built on the ashes of America’s liberal democracy. 'It sounds crazy. It’s called ‘MAGA Communism,’ and the ‘communism’ thing means common wealth, common prosperity,' Haz tells one man, in a video he posted to his YouTube channel from the event."
2. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that anyone who cares about the working class should abandon the liberal 'culture war' and ally with America’s largest anti-establishment populist movement—MAGA—ultimately in the name of inciting a populist revolution."
3. "Fundamentally, the beliefs that underpin Hinkle and Infrared aren't all that hard to parse. Haz and Infrared contend that communism can be a force for nationalistic might, and that the amorphous force of 'MAGA' represents the largest collective of working people who can fulfill the dream of American prosperity."

My view is that Davide King's suggestion doesn't get to the core of what "MAGA Communism" means according to the sources. Unity against globalism is mentioned a few times, it just isn't enough for the article to have it say that being against globalism is what MAGA Communism can be reduced to. Instead, it's more accurate to say it is a call for the MAGA movement to adopt socialist ideas. For context, here are the only times globalism is mentioned in the source.

1. "“It sounds crazy. It’s called ‘MAGA Communism,’ and the ‘communism’ thing means common wealth, common prosperity,” Haz tells one man, in a video he posted to his YouTube channel from the event. “We all come together: the workers striking at the railways, the MAGA industrial working class, the small farmers, we all unite with our power. We kick out the globalists. We kick out George Soros. We kick out Klaus Schwab. We stop that Great Reset agenda in its tracks.”"
2. "Promoting “MAGA Communism” alongside Haz has been 23-year-old Jackson Hinkle, a commentator who also has his own show on YouTube. Recently, Hinkle has agitated around the “globalist” threat (a term most commonly used as an antisemitic dog-whistle), championed Putin in the Ukraine war, and made the rounds on right-wing cable news, including  appearances on OANN and Tucker Carlson Tonight."
3. "Haz is trumpeting his Oct. 1 foray into a Trump rally as a major win for this movement, crowing at the “haters” who told him he would likely get punched. But it’s also evident that Haz served up the most palatable version of “MAGA Communism” possible, sticking to a loose script railing against “globalists,” Wall Street, Big Tech, and the Green New Deal." Alleycat1995 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We should not rely on primary sources (including quotes) but on secondary ones. You appear to be taking it too seriously and at face value. In fact, the secondary source does not take the communist or socialist claims seriously, for example using the "self-described" caveat. We must also not mixes Haz and Hinkle's views, when this should be about the latter. Even from the quote itself, the one that is from Hinkle himself, my proposed wording is more accurate for what Hinkle said. Hinkle's programme itself cited in Vice is a common far-right populist platform, where are those socialist polices? Your proposed wording gives way too much weight to that. In fact, Vice literally quotes TYT co-host Ana Kasparian as saying: "They co-opted socialist rhetoric to bring people in, and then their 'populist' movement was what? Extermination." Guess who else co-opted socialist rethoric? The far-right. It is nothing new, other than a new oxymoronic term.

Daniel HoSang, a professor at Yale University and an expert on America's modern right-wing movements, told Motherboard. "But what's interesting about the 'MAGA Communism' phrase is that it doesn't necessarily mean communism in the literal sense of, say, demanding collective ownership. I think it's meant to be a kind of cultural invocation—a defense from that which the elites want you to believe. It suggests something about how people's political moorings are unsettled, and the search to find new bearings."

This supports what I am saying. The "communism" thing is nothing more than a cover for a rebranded radical-right-wing populism. Davide King (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

What matters is what independent observers (WP:SECONDARYSOURCES/WP:RELIABLESOURCES) say, not quotes from Hinkle (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES), whose views (e.g. what he claims and what observers says) are better discussed in the body. Did we even read the same article? Why did you not include this relevant (among others) part?

On the ground, Haz and Hinkle crib from the far-right entertainment playbook by agitating on livestreams, hoping to capture some essential conflict that proves their intellectual superiority. Last weekend, Haz and Hinkle went to Twitchcon, a major convention for streamers in San Diego, and filmed themselves harassing seemingly random attendees by mocking COVID masking, Ukraine support, and online content moderation.

It was presumably a performance to "own the libs," but mostly resulted in perplexed faces staring back at the duo. Much of the same unfolded a few days later on the campus of UCLA, where Haz, Hinkle and "Dark MAGA" streamer Jon Zherka spent hours trying to "debate" passing students. Mostly, they stood around and yelled, including Haz proclaiming that "all liberals are ugly!" while holding a sign that read "FEMINISM IS CANCER."

[This is not leftist or even Marxist–Leninist rethoric, this is straight conservative rethoric, and they associated themselves with Zherka, who is described by Vice as a "Dark MAGA" streamer, and "has been described as more extreme than Andrew Tate", e.g. far-right.]

It's not surprising that the swirl of social conservatism [not socialism — the sole mention of "socialism" is in the context of co-option], patriotism and subversive energy that inform "MAGA Communism" have been criticized as a repackaging of fascist ideals of yore. In his seminal text Blackshirts and Reds, the political scientist Michael Parenti describes how fascist movements co-opt the symbols and language of socialism, building a "pseudo-revolution" that appeals to the working class without actually subverting existing power structures (such as a capitalist economy). That's exactly the concern of observers who say that "MAGA Communism" is just a new grift, built to create viral views by embracing authoritarianism and MAGA.

So who holds more weight? Non-independent quotes or the views of a political scientist and a professor and right-wing movement experts? I think the answers should be clear.
Davide King (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Davide King's analysis. I had previous added self-described to the ML claim but was reverted. The sources are clear in that his views are very far from any standard ML theory, and the ones that uncritically repeat his claim are sites like RCP which is RSP lists as marginally reliable and suggests should be avoided if possible -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RCP’s caution primarily lies due to 2020 election misleading information so sourcing outside of this area is much less risky and cautious and it very much is a RS.

Jackson Hinkle is described by secondary RS alternatively as on that side or as a Communist/Marxist-Leninist.

He has only been called right wing like once, and has been called conservative plenty of times which goes along with how he describes himself “Conservative Marxist-Leninist” according to Jewish Chronicle article. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that RCP should be avoided. Remember, this is a BLP and a particularly high standard of sourcing is therefore required. If you think this is an exceptional case, you need to ask you why not simply assert that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RCP should be avoided here in a BLP and the discussion at RSN [27] was certainly not limited to RCP's position on the 2020 election. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

1) “We should not rely on primary sources (including quotes) but on secondary ones.”

I agree with this. All editors need to be aware of WP:PST. “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources” which is met with examples I provided above. The only primary source I provided was one of the examples where fighting against globalism is mentioned. This further adds to why the article should not reduce “MAGA Communism” to being against globalism and the status quo.

2) “You appear to be taking it too seriously and at face value. In fact, the secondary source does not take the communist or socialist claims seriously, for example using the "self-described" caveat.”

The source using the phrase “self-described” does not necessarily mean they are not taking the communism or socialist claims seriously. It could reflect that the source is only skeptical. For example, they do not provide any caveats around the word communism and marxism when they write this:

1. “Fundamentally, the beliefs that underpin Hinkle and Infrared aren't all that hard to parse. Haz and Infrared contend that communism can be a force for nationalistic might, and that the amorphous force of “MAGA” represents the largest collective of working people who can fulfill the dream of American prosperity.”
2. “Can anyone really build a Marxist movement by allying with a demographic that appears to be rife with anti-communist fever?”

Furthermore, the source even goes as far as to say that Haz is sincere when discussing communism and nowhere in the source do they explicitly say that the communist and socialist claims are unserious:

1. “Haz comes off as deeply sincere when he discusses communist theory and his vision to remold the “MAGA working class,” but this sincerity isn’t shared by everyone who is spreading MAGA Communism.”

3) “We must also not mixes Haz and Hinkle's views, when this should be about the latter.”

The article itself is about Hinkle, but the text in question is a description of MAGA Communism, something that both Hinkle and Haz worked together in creating as shown here:

1. “Promoting “MAGA Communism” alongside Haz has been 23-year-old Jackson Hinkle”

4) “Even from the quote itself, the one that is from Hinkle himself, my proposed wording is more accurate for what Hinkle said. Hinkle's programme itself cited in Vice is a common far-right populist platform”

I can’t find this in the Vice article, I could’ve missed it though. Can you please provide some context to this? I know that various other sources have described him as far-right, but there have also been multiple sources which describe him as even Marxist and far-left.

5) “where are those socialist policies?”

The socialist ideas in “MAGA Communism” mentioned in the Vice article are more broad, although they do provide a tweet from Hinkle (note that this is a primary source) listing policies. Some of the socialist values they do mention though are “prosperity and working-class unity” (although historically the actual application of the success of these ideas in reality is disputed.) and “nationalistic might”.

6) “Your proposed wording gives way too much weight to that. In fact, Vice literally quotes TYT co-host Ana Kasparian as saying: "They co-opted socialist rhetoric to bring people in, and then their 'populist' movement was what? Extermination."”

Vice quotes Kasparian not as an agreement with her, but to give more perspective from other political commentators. And she doesn’t explicitly say that Hinkle is far-right, she only expresses concern because of the socialist rhetoric from fascists.

7) “Guess who else co-opted socialist rethoric? The far-right.”

MAGA Communism isn’t described as far-right in this source.

8) “It is nothing new, other than a new oxymoronic term.”

The source does not describe MAGA Communism as an oxymoron. It even goes as far to say that MAGA Communism “seems” to be contradictory “from a distance” (It doesn’t say “MAGA Communism is contradictory”) which reflects the complexity of the way they described MAGA Communism above and their refusal to put a label onto it.

9) “Daniel HoSang, a professor at Yale University and an expert on America's modern right-wing movements, told Motherboard. "But what's interesting about the 'MAGA Communism' phrase is that it doesn't necessarily mean communism in the literal sense of, say, demanding collective ownership. I think it's meant to be a kind of cultural invocation—a defense from that which the elites want you to believe. It suggests something about how people's political moorings are unsettled, and the search to find new bearings."”

This is the perspective of Daniel HoSang. It is not Vice’s research. It cannot be concluded that MAGA Communism is right wing from HoSang being an expert on right-wing movements. We need to make sure to not violate WP:OR when making suggestions.

10) “The "communism" thing is nothing more than a cover for a rebranded radical-right-wing populism.”

Again, reliable sources must first show that MAGA Communism is the same as rebranded radical-right-wing populism. If this is at the core of why you want to edit the article, then I really don’t think the change should be made.

It’s also important to note that WP:LEAD explains how the lead should “summarize the most important points” in the article. Since the emphasis on globalism is not yet in the MAGA Communism section of the article, it should not be in the lede.

11) “Did we even read the same article? Why did you not include this relevant (among others) part?”

This is a pretty dishonest thing to say. I didn’t include those texts because they’re not relevant. The source does not describe him as far-right in the quotes you provided. I believe the misunderstanding comes from the Vice article not labeling MAGA Communism as the same thing as communism, the same thing as fascism, or anything between.

12) “So who holds more weight? Non-independent quotes or the views of a political scientist and a professor and right-wing movement experts? I think the answers should be clear.”

The Vice article is reliable according to WP:RS. The views of these other people are important, but they are not reflective of the Vice article itself. And they do not explicitly equate MAGA Communism to being far-right. Again, it’s important to not put undue weight on “globalism” which isn’t even something the political scientist or professor said. Instead, the article should reflect what the source says (secondary, not primary) which is the emphasis on synthesis of MAGA and communism/socialism. Alleycat1995 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

"Hinkle is known for his advocacy of MAGA communism, a call for an American communism that ignores the left-right dichotomy and recognizes the revolutionary potential of MAGA supporters."

based off:

_{Fundamentally, the beliefs that underpin Hinkle and Infrared aren't all that hard to parse. Haz and Infrared contend that communism can be a force for nationalistic might, and that the amorphous force of “MAGA” represents the largest collective of working people who can fulfill the dream of American prosperity. They marginalize issues they deem as being “liberal” or “identity politics,” whether that’s the fight for trans rights or Indigenous efforts to reclaim land. Once in a while, they end up agreeing with leftists, as with their claims that American imperialism should be rejected. . . . “MAGA Communism” almost seems like the logical next step in “horseshoe theory,” or the hypothesis that the extremes of the political spectrum have overlapping beliefs, such as a broad distrust of major institutions. But Haz and Hinkle go further, downplaying the value of the left-right dichotomy altogether and decrying their critics of being “too stupid” to comprehend it. They criticize Democrats and their “leftist foot soldiers” as reactionaries, and see opportunity in the revolutionary energy of the MAGA masses.} Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with @Davide King, You are putting a lot of your own opinions into the article rather than looking at it.

1. The article clearly states that they see a use of Communism in regards to the “amorphous force of MAGA” (meaning the MAGA working class as stated later on) and how Haz and Hinkle attack the Democrats and “leftists” as reactionaries furthermore upholding a belief in the revolutionary potential in this large collective of working people in the MAGA movement.

_{Fundamentally, the beliefs that underpin Hinkle and Infrared aren't all that hard to parse. Haz and Infrared contend that communism can be a force for nationalistic might, and that the amorphous force of “MAGA” represents the largest collective of working people who can fulfill the dream of American prosperity. They marginalize issues they deem as being “liberal” or “identity politics,” whether that’s the fight for trans rights or Indigenous efforts to reclaim land. Once in a while, they end up agreeing with leftists, as with their claims that American imperialism should be rejected. . . . “MAGA Communism” almost seems like the logical next step in “horseshoe theory,” or the hypothesis that the extremes of the political spectrum have overlapping beliefs, such as a broad distrust of major institutions. But Haz and Hinkle go further, downplaying the value of the left-right dichotomy altogether and decrying their critics of being “too stupid” to comprehend it. They criticize Democrats and their “leftist foot soldiers” as reactionaries, and see opportunity in the revolutionary energy of the MAGA masses.}

2. This: _{Daniel HoSang, a professor at Yale University and an expert on America's modern right-wing movements, told Motherboard. "But what's interesting about the 'MAGA Communism' phrase is that it doesn't necessarily mean communism in the literal sense of, say, demanding collective ownership. I think it's meant to be a kind of cultural invocation—a defense from that which the elites want you to believe. It suggests something about how people's political moorings are unsettled, and the search to find new bearings."} Does not change what they advocate. He is simplly saying MAGA Communism phrase does not mean collective ownership, Wikipedia designates the CPC as Marxist-Leninist despite many private firms in China. After that there is a vague statement on what he believes it does mean, not enough for us to base it on. He says “doesn’t necessarily mean” not doesn’t mean. FURTHERMORE, HoSang is referring to the phrase which according to the article is used by a disparate number of political leanings from accelerationists to more sincere Communists.

I don’t propose relying on quotes but you seem to want to. VICE quotes TYT host saying be careful because some fascist movements have used socialist rhetoric, not calling them fascist, no where in the article is Hinkle said to be pushing for re-branded right wing populism, it does mention them using some similar tactics but it also mentions this is done to win over MAGA supporters to their side which as I’ve said aligns more with mine and Alleycat’s edit than yours. I think it’s a strange leap to insert your on personal opinions on some views disqualifying someone/something from being Marxist-Leninist in spite of RS’ saying they still are, this sounds like independent research being inserted especially given the odd claim of stating that a connection to one streamer who in some other article was said to be more extreme than a kickboxer has anything to do with this, again independent research of yours, and in the part of Parenti it only references what critics have said before hand stating what they reference when attacking. When it refers to observers they link NonCompete, one YouTuber. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I will not going to reply to every single point because I do not think it will solve anything, and we will just have to agree to disagree. I am willing to consider different wording to use but I am not convinced by those. I will just note that The Week described him as a conservative commentator, The Times as a right-wing influencer, and The Guardian as a far-right social media influencer, so they do not appear to take his communist or Marxist–Leninist credentials seriously, and that the talk of syncretism and going being the left and right is a main talking point of the far right. Additionally, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and experts about the subject, which Daniel HoSang is. I am not saying we must say he is a far-right-wing populist or grift as fact (I think sourcing is still all over the place and more time is needed for reliable sources to get more profiles about Hinkle), etc. I just do not think that your proposed wording is neutral or accurate according to secondary sources.
Again, the piece refers to Haz, not to Hinkle, as being sincere, and says Hinkle rails against globalism (using a far-right dog whistle), hence why a call for Marxist–Leninists to support the MAGA movement against the status quo and globalism is a better wording for Hinkle and in line with what we say in the body too, e.g. Hinkle and other supporters of MAGA Communism argue that those who care about the working class should ally with the MAGA movement, which they consider to be the largest anti-establishment populist movement in the United States, to incite a populist revolution. They believe that MAGA Communism can serve as a force for American prosperity, working-class unity, and they emphasize patriotic strength and the benefit of the common good. My proposed wording is a good summary of the body, and is very short, concie, and to the point, as the lead should be. Any real improvement based on secondary reliable sources, not based only on what Haz and Hinkle say (it is why we must rely on independent reliable sources), is welcome. Davide King (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There are various sources that describe him as right wing, progressive, conservative, far left, far right, and Marxist. And Vice is just one source that avoids giving him a label. The other article about MAGA Communism also does not label it as right wing. There is no consensus that Hinkle is right-wing, so we must take that into consideration to maintain WP:NPOV. If anything, I would argue that Vice suggests MAGA Communism is a result of horseshoe theory, the idea that the far-left is similar to the far-right. But even then, they take a cautious approach. Instead of ignoring the complexity around whether Hinkle is right-wing and taking a biased stance, we should remain neutral and be more cautious (which is also what the Vice article does). You're right that the article is about Hinkle, not Haz, however, the text in dispute is about what "MAGA Communism" means. And since Haz and Hinkle worked together to create this (according to Vice), then what Haz says is not something that should be discounted. For clarity, it would be incorrect to attribute something Haz said to Hinkle, but it wouldn't be incorrect to attribute something Haz said to MAGA Communism. There are key points you haven't responded to yet. These quotes from the Vice article do not mention globalism. And one of the times globalism is mentioned in the article is a primary source. It's incorrect to say that being against globalism is at the core of what Vice is saying here:

1. "His pitch for the Oct. 1 event: A new ideology of prosperity and working-class unity, built on the ashes of America’s liberal democracy. 'It sounds crazy. It’s called ‘MAGA Communism,’ and the ‘communism’ thing means common wealth, common prosperity,' Haz tells one man, in a video he posted to his YouTube channel from the event."
2. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that anyone who cares about the working class should abandon the liberal 'culture war' and ally with America’s largest anti-establishment populist movement—MAGA—ultimately in the name of inciting a populist revolution."
3. "Fundamentally, the beliefs that underpin Hinkle and Infrared aren't all that hard to parse. Haz and Infrared contend that communism can be a force for nationalistic might, and that the amorphous force of 'MAGA' represents the largest collective of working people who can fulfill the dream of American prosperity."

I agree that improvements should be based on secondary reliable sources, not primary ones. This is why we should avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to MAGA Communism being against "globalism" when it's only mentioned twice in passing. We also need to acknowledge the complexity of whether Hinkle is far-right, or not. This is a discussion worth continuing.

I am okay with the way the article currently stands for the time being. However, I would like to continue this discussion: "Hinkle is known for his advocacy of MAGA communism, a call for an American communism that ignores the left-right dichotomy and recognizes the revolutionary potential of MAGA supporters." Alleycat1995 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to argue about quotes, and I would rather you provide further alternative wording so that we can reach a compromise. Also please provide these sources that describe him as progressive (I had already to remove this because none of the given refs include that or similar wording), far left (the only one is the Euromaidan Press), and Marxist (who do not use the "self-describes" caveat). Note that they must be generally reliable (like The Times and The Guardian who describe him as a right-wing and far-right influencer, respectively), or at least not generally unreliable, otherwhise they do not count. Davide King (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus among editors, or among sources to whether or not Hinkle is far-right, far-left, marxist, etc. Here is a list of the sources I have been able to find that give labels of what Hinkle's political views are. Please note that there are many sources, I can give a list if necessary, that avoid labeling him this way. I speculate it's because of horseshoe theory, the idea that the far left and far right are similar to one another.

Sources that describe Hinkle as "right wing", "far right", "conservative", "maga influencer", and "pro trump"

[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

Sources that describe Hinkle as "progressive", "marxist", "post left", and "far left"

[37][38][39][40][41]

Sources that describe him as something else. Note that this doesn't include any of the sources that simply describe him as "American journalist" or any of them that do not give him a label:

[42] "conspiracy theorist"

[43] "troll"

Alleycat1995 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As I thought, most of the sources used for "progressive" (perhaps he was one in the past but he no longer identifies as such), "Marxist", "post left", and "far left" are either unreliable, not usable as self-published, or fringe, and are the same reason why @David Gerard removed similar sources here and here. Davide King (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes these sources unreliable? Self published? Fringe? I disagree with those edits you listed. The fact that there's any disagreement at all, and that many sources don't give him a label like this show that it's not as simple as him being "far right". We need to maintain a WP:NPOV Alleycat1995 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

My view is, if anything (I don't think there's a consensus yet for this), we should go down the route of referencing horseshoe theory. The Vice article alludes to this. But regardless, it's important to be cautious, especially because this is a WP:BLP Alleycat1995 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Why give all the weight to Vice, for which there is no consensus as a source (WP:RSP)? Do not get me wrong, I think it is an interesting article, it can be used, and remains the best source for "MAGA Communism" but we should not state the "horseshoe theory", which is itself controversial and not supported in academia, as a fact or have it in the lead. I also do not think the piece completely endorses that theory, it simply mention it as a way to understand MAGA Communism.
Davide King (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point to not put all the weight to Vice. The reason I like the Vice article is for its info about MAGA Communism. It's complicated because Hinkle is tied to MAGA Communism, which isn't exactly far right or far left, but like you said there are sources that describe Hinkle in other ways. It's better to be cautious about this and not completely dismiss one side as not serious. I agree with your point on false balance, and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to explain how there is no consensus on what to label Hinkle as. This is different from the example given, climate change denial, because that topic is much more objective. It can be factually proven. Right-wing and left-wing, far-left, etc are much more difficult to measure. How are the 5/14 sources (35%) insignificant or unreliable? And why not consider how some articles intentionally do not give him a label? I agree that more reliable sources should hold more weight, but that doesn't mean dismiss all other reliable sources too. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I can understand your points. To make it as short and concise as possible, my reading from reliable sources is that perhaps he was in the past a progressive (The Guardian said he once was a "young supporter of the leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders"), but he is now a MAGA supporter, and so he is a conservative and right-wing. In fact, The Euromaidan Press describes as "far-left" his show, which may have indeed saw far-left anti-imperialist hosts, not Hinkle himself. Now we literally have no sources using the far-left label to describe Hinkle, so can we stop acting as though the MAGA Communist Hinkle is a progressive or left-wing?

MAGA Communism should be seen more as a meme, perhaps in the future it may be something more than that, than taken at face value and too seriously when it a right-wing attempt to go beyond the traditional left-right spectrum but it must be viewed withing the context of the right-wing movement, hence why Vice quoted an expert of modern American right-wing movements. You seem to think that it already goes beyond the left and right, and so it cannot be classified as right-wing (even though there is now no single sources describing it as far-left). I think sources see it within the context of the far right's "beyond/neither left and right" concept. At least that is how I see the Vice article. The fact that MAGA Communism is not easy to pin down does not change this. Davide King (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To make it more clear, you say (correct me if wrong) MAGA Communism and Hinkle cannot be classified on the political spectrum because they go beyond the left and right. I say that you are confusing its goal with how the movement originated and how the better sources describe him as conservative, right-wing, or far-right. "Beyond the left and right" is merely the goal, MAGA Communism originated, and remains, as a right-wing movement (where do you think MAGA comes from?) that attempts to go beyond left and right (but that is yet to be seen, as things stands it seems more a way to appeal to left-wing progressive and become MAGA conservatives like Hinkle's evolution through MAGA Communism), with Hinkle being a progressive/left-wing only in the past perhaps and now a right-wing MAGA conservative.
Davide King (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Hinkle the sole host on "The Dive"? And Hinkle has been described as a "Marxist-Leninist" and "Marxist" before. He has been directly described as "post-left" too. I'm not pretending that Hinkle is left-wing, I just don't want to oversimplify him as being right-wing considering there are reliable sources that describe him as Marxist, far-left, and post-left. That being said, the crazyprogressives article is old and therefore is less reliable than the more current articles about him. I personally think that MAGA Communism is a result of horseshoe theory which says that the far left and far right a closer to one another rather than being polar opposites. But it doesn't matter what I think because what matters is the sources we have. And we have reliable sources that not only do not describe him as right-wing, but we also have some that describe him as Marxist. The vice article does not describe MAGA Communism as far right, or as a meme. The compact article does describe it as a meme, but still takes it seriously. I believe this confusion is a result of an assumption that Hinkle is right-wing. There is no consensus for this yet. Alleycat1995 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not know whether Hinkle is the sole host (perhaps they called the show "far-left anti-imperialist" because that could be the target audience, it would not surprise me as both the left and right have an anti-imperialist wing) but we must reflect what sources say, per WP:VERIFICATION. To uses that source, which describes his show as "far-left imperialist", to say that Hinkle is "far-left" would be too close to WP:OR. Since you correctly noted that the Crazy Progressives article is "old and therefore is less reliable than the more current articles about him", I would note that the Vice article is from 2022 and more recent articles, such as The Times and The Guardian, described him as right-wing and far-right, respectively.

As for the labels, from the sources that I have seen using "Marxist–Leninist" or "Marxist", they do not use it as a descriptor but merely say it is a a self-description (I could recall wrong but that is how I remember reading them), which is different, and is the reaon why it cannot be compared to reliable sources stating as fact that Hinkle is right-wing and/or far-right. As for "post-left", I have only seen used it by Hawkins, who is a politician and not a journalist or political scientist. As for the horeshoe theory, if a significant number of reliable sources place MAGA Communism within that context, I think the better place for that is a sentence at "Horseshoe theory". If this is to be discussed here, I think it would be better to have it the body at the "MAGA Communism" section rather than the lead, at least until we get a clearer consensus on the wording to use and concise way to describe and summarize MAGA Communism, which is not easy, in the lead.
Davide King (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean "false balance" but "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." If the sources for "left-wing" are obscure or unreliable websites, it is telling that it is not significant enough. The Times and The Guardian are mainstream newspapers, so they should hold more weight. As you can see, we do not mention either "conservative" or "right-wing" in the first sentence, and we do not even state it as fact but merealy with the caveated "described [by A, B, etc.] as". I just do not think that "left-wing" and similar labels hold enough WP:WEIGHT for a mention if they are from unreliable, self-published, or obscure/fringe sources. Davide King (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion being used here, you make a personal judgement call seeming to know somehow that they “don’t take his ML credentials seriously” Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

When generally reliable sources like The Times (right-leaning) and The Guardian (left-leaning) agree that he is right-wing, it is not my "personal judgement [sic]".
Davide King (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure of my opinion of this particular sentence, but a couple of points: I strongly support DavideKing’s edits on the whole. This is a new article and without “edit revisions” the project cannot proceed. All editors here maybe need to give fuller explanations of their edits in the summary to help avoid edit war. There is also a general problem of overuse of primary sources and weak sources in this article. Finally, some of the problems being discussed here would be resolved, if a new article was created on MAGA communism, and we then didn’t have the confusing conflation of Haz and Hinkle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an independent MAGA Communism article would help resolve the problem. The section about MAGA Communism within the article about Hinkle can include what Haz says since Hinkle promoted MAGA Communism "alongside" Haz. The RCP articles are secondary. Looking at the discussion for whether RCP is reliable shows many different reasons. However, the reasons that people view it as not reliability do not apply to this situation. And the reasons people view it as reliable do apply. Shouldn't this be considered? One last thing... I tried to give a thorough explanation but if more is needed, I can give more explanation. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

References

If and when will we get rid of the deletion?

I´ve written a little bit on the deletion discussion page, and all but one person for deleting it, when should we get rid of the tag? StrongALPHA (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It will be removed when the AfD discussion is officially closed with a consensus to keep. Davide King (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Update to summary

Hope you all don't mind that I made some significant updates to the summary. I see there were previous discussions about his ideology and how he should best be described, so hope others can agree with his self-described ideology of "American Conservative Marxist–Leninist" that I included, given it precedes how others have described him.

Due to the lack of understanding regarding "MAGA Communism", as well as lack of RS sources that actually documents this ideology (ie it's not even a topic on here for good reason), I think ACML is as accurate as it get's. Thanks otherwise to Alleycat1995 for expanding the list of labels he's been described as, instead of simply removing others, this is what I was hoping would happen. I knew it might be unusual to have such a large list of descriptors, but due to his obscure ideological stance I think it makes the most sense.

As a suggestion for improving the topic (assuming it doesn't get deleted) then I think the MAGA Communism section could be improved with information on the "MAGA divides", as have seen a few RS sources for this, and could provide good context. At the moment it's predominantly all from the Vice source, with a paragraph from News Republic source.

Ideally there would also be a section on "Misinformation" or "Criticisms", given how many sources have popped up in recent weeks regarding Israel–Hamas war and Hinkle, most of them RS which were also used in the summary. It generally seems that his notability in the past month has been exclusively based on his misinformation in regards to this topic, so worth documenting.

Potentially I'll get round to it at some point but the list of examples are quite extensive to deal with when put together, at least as far as I can tell. Ideally someone from the Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war would get round to it, once they initially balance out the article POV.

- CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, I have only found 2 RS that are specifically about "MAGA Communism". The Vice article is one, and this is the other. This may help with deciphering what it means. I agree that it's better to list what he has been described as. For the MAGA Communism section, I think it's important to have the MAGA Communism section include a section on criticism and reception. It was recommended for me to merge the MAGA Communism article with the Jackson Hinkle article which is why I believe it's important to have. I agree with having a section titled Criticism or Criticism/Misinformation or whatever else might work. Lastly thank you for the kind words! Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added the MAGA divides here. As for the proposal, see WP:CRITICISM; it is better to include any criticism as relevant in the body rather than create a segregate section. A "Reception" section may be more appropriate, as would "Misiniformation", which could list the most egregious examples, although I would wait for more reliable sources to come and be enough to build a separate section. Davide King (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Replying to you here based on topic. I see your changes to summary, it does look a lot cleaner now have to admit. I otherwise had "Generally reliable" sources referencing Hinkle as both right-wing and far-right, both 3/4 for each, but will add to views section. As opposed to other descriptions of him that come from less reliable sources, or sources with no consensus over reliability.

As I said will otherwise look into creating a misinformation section, given that majority of his reception has been based on this so far. There are around 6-8 RS sources with examples for this.

I also think anti-Israel should be added to Movement list, there are ample sources for this. I'm aware it redirects to anti-Zionism, however ironically I couldn't find a source describing Hinkle as such. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel critic (Jewish Chronicle article uses this, anti-israel was also used),is the most common phrase. The fact he hasn’t outright called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and has more oriented toward just negative reporting against Israel and calling for a ceasefire and ending oil supply to Israel (Turkish article covered this I believe unless I’m mistaken) is probably why he’s been labeled Israel critic and anti-Israel more than anti-Zionist. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• correction, I was wrong. He did say he wants to end aid to Israel because he believes it will lead to the collapse of Israel. BUT this was in a Alex jones interview of Hinkle recently and no secondary sources have covered it yet, so for now stick to “Israel critic” and anti-israel

Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is coming together quite nicely Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2