Talk:Jackson Hinkle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

MAGA Communism Section

The current section has 97 words describing what it is, and 297 words describing criticism. My concern is that this weight is not the same amount of weight given in the source provided.[1] Do other editors agree? Disagree? Alleycat1995 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that that this, which I have not written but whoever did it "Thank you", is a perfectly good summary of the article's analysis of MAGA Communism.

Hinkle and other supporters of MAGA Communism argue that those who care about the working class should ally with the MAGA movement [I have not written this part but this is where my proposed wording from the lead comes from], which they consider to be the largest anti-establishment populist movement in the United States [this one I added it myself], 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. MAGA Communists criticize liberal identity politics and reject American imperialism.

The difference in length is merely because the former is a concise paraphrase, while the latter includes quotes. Since he proclaims himself a "[MAGA] Communist", I think it is due to include the left-wing criticism, which appears longer because it includes quotes. As for Daniel HoSang and Brian Hughes, theirs is an analysis, not a criticism. Davide King (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the summary of MAGA Communism is not a problem, but the problem is that the article gives a lot of weight to the criticism of MAGA Communism when the source doesn't. Doesn't this harm the balance of the article? The fact that quotes are included in the latter doesn't mean it doesn't disrupt the balance of the article. I'm going to try and fix this problem but feel free to revert it if you see fit. Alleycat1995 (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, that would be false balance, and NPOV does not mean "We must give equal weight of positive and negative analysis". I do not think your edits were an improvement, but I tried to address some of the issue you raised, such as for "most" (I took from Vice saying "mostly" in reference to left-wing critics) and "Parenti" (if the issue was that one may be confused and think that Parenti was reffering to MAGA Communism, when Vice referenced it as an example of "socialism co-option" that most left-wing critics see as). I hope that this is was a decent compromise for now. As I wrote in my edit summary, I also do not think Sader should be removed since (1) Hinkle had a debate with him; (2) he directly addressed Hinkle, the subject of this article, and not just MAGA Communism; and (3) nicely fits with the next sentence that tries to address and explain the word salad criticism, namely that "Communism" in "MAGA Communism" does not refer to communism, or collective/common ownership, but to something else. Finally, thank you for your kindness and not being upset for my reverts. I hope I reciprocate that. :-)
Davide King (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying NPOV means we must give equal weight to both sides. I am saying the opposite. The section on "MAGA Communism" has more weight on criticism when the source doesn't reflect that. For an analogy, if the article is 30% description and 70% criticism, but the source is 60% description and 40% criticism, then there should be more description or less criticism. There is undue weight on the criticism.

Regarding Parenti, the problem is that most left wing critics do not reference Parenti. But the article says, "Observers and left-wing critics mostly see MAGA Communism as an alt-right spin to combine aspects of what Vice characterized as "authoritarian MAGA" with "tankie communism", and co-opting socialism, referencing a far-right strategy described in Blackshirts and Reds by political scientist Michael Parenti."

And Sam Seder's comments are just an explanation of what he was thinking during the debate. It's even more problematic than some of the other quotes because it's unnecessary. It's not analysis. Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on the undue weight on criticism, since I consider only Kasparian, Sader, and The New Republic as criticism, which is about as long as the first paragraph intriducing MAGA Communism; everything else is analysis properly attributed. It does not matter that most left-wing critics may not literally reference Parenti, especially when there are few critics of it because many do not know about MAGA Communism, as it is a fringe idea, one that "can and will stick around, especially on YouTube—a venue that, despite all its ills, remains a crucial hub for instigating political brawls and generating a fandom for fringe ideas." It now also say "left-wing critics mostly", not "most left-wing" critics, and that wording is the same used by the source. And no, Seder's comments were not "an explanation of what he was thinking during the debate" he had with him, as Seder was commenting on Hinkle's OANN interview. It is simply another example of a left-wing critic of Hinkle's views and a nice introduction to the next sentence that explains how communism is not to be taken seriously in MAGA Communism.
Davide King (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That would mean that there are 105 words of description, and 181 words of criticism. Meanwhile less than half of the source is criticism. This is still undue weight.

It does matter that left-wing critics mostly didn't reference Parenti when the article says they did. Sam Seder's description adds nothing to the article. It only adds undue weight to criticism. Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about a fringe idea, as Vice notes, so it is not surprising that there is more criticism. Wikipedia is also not required to follow the structure of a given source; we are not required to copy the structure, like "this source has 70% analysis, 30% criticism, so we must do the same". You also seem to ignore that most sources have a negative view of Hinkle due to his misinformation, and so someone may argue that there is not enough criticism; quite a few users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Hinkle said the article was too positive towards the subject, and violated NPOV for not having enough criticism due to the subject's misinformation, so you must keep that in mind.

"It does matter that left-wing critics mostly didn't reference Parenti when the article says they did."

• If by article, you meant Vice, please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is about verification, not truth, so that wording ("mostly") is supported by the source, and is all that matters.
• If by article you were referring to our Wikipedia article, the "alt-right spin" is precisely the co-opting that the far right has been notorious for doing, and Vice noted this. The sentence reads: Observers and left-wing critics mostly see MAGA Communism as an alt-right spin to combine aspects of what Vice characterized as "authoritarian MAGA" with "tankie communism", and co-opting socialism, referencing a far-right strategy described in Blackshirts and Reds by political scientist Michael Parenti.

The last part, the bolded part, is to be considerated a separate one and does not imply that everyone see it that way (if that is the issue), just one example of criticism, which we then further explain by quoting Kasparian like Vice did. Said this, what would you change about it? How would you re-write that sentence?

Sam Seder's description was notable or significant enough for Vice to mention, it directly addresses Hinkle and MAGA Communism, and is certainly useful and notable, since many people would probably have a similar reaction upon hearing MAGA Communism. Davide King (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the amount of criticism in the article does not accurately reflect the amount of criticism in the source. That is why there is undue weight. I see your view on the Parenti quote, and I will try and work on it so others don't make the same mistake I did. Sam Seder's quote is mentioned by Vice, but considering it doesn't add much criticism, and considering the undue weight the article already has towards criticism, my view is that it should be removed. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, we do not base the criticism we put in the article off the structure of a single source. There are sources even more critical than Vice. Criticism must be based off multiple reliable sources, not a single one. I also think you understate the criticism of the Vice piece. Davide King (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe @CommunityNotesContributor and @Patar knight are two users who said there was not enough criticism and the article was too positive towards Hinkle, so they may be helpful with their comments on this and whether they have an issue with the green-coloured part I quoted. Davide King (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about criticism of MAGA Communism (not simply criticism of Hinkle), which is sourced to the Vice article. Yet the Vice article doesn't give as much emphasis on the criticism that the article currently gives. Sure, there can be more criticism of Hinkle if it's reflected in the sources, but there is too much criticism of MAGA Communism according to the source. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Vice gives emphasis to Kasparian and Seder's criticism, which you want to remove, at least Seder's. Also, Hinkle's movement has been criticized as eschewing progressive values does not seem to be supported by The New Republic, so I wonder who wrote that, from which source they take it; combined American nationalism with praise for another authoritarian leader despised by most Americans, China's Xi Jinping also seem like their analysis, which may be wrong, but it is their take from analyzing it. Now that I think about it, Kasparian and Seder did not even criticize it, at least from the quotes, they just gave a comment (the former about how the far right co-opted socialism and how MAGA Communism could be a similar thing, which sound like her own analysis, while the latter simply questioned what MAGA Communism actually means since the two words, apparently meaning support for Trump and communism, are a contradiction and an oxymoron). But since it apparently questioned MAGA Communism, you consider it as a negative and criticism. So I think that your argument of alleged too much criticism does not hold weigh and the analysis/criticism distinction is more complicated than you make it be. Davide King (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to reduce the size of the criticism to match the amount proportional in the source. I only suggest removing Seder's because his criticism doesn't really add anything to the article. If it isn't criticism, it shouldn't be included in the same paragraph as the criticism because at the moment it definitely looks like criticism. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This also violates WP:VOTESTACKING Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and is not based around voting but consensus, which does not have to be unanimous. Since we obviously disagree, and it does not help that we continue this back-and-forth discussion, it is a good thing that other users weigh in. I could not list everyone who made an edit or comment here, those were two users I easily remembered, so I pinged them. Also you should assume good faith. Finally, you seem very much knowledgable about Wikipedia policies, like you linked WP:VOTESTACKING, yet you are a new user. Users who were banned in the past and have a WP:SOCKPUPPET account, without having their ban finished or overturned, are in violations of the aforementioned policy. This is not an accusation (it is common for many experienced users to question new users who seem much knowledgable desbite their account being created only recently, see this example), like the one you just did, it is simply a warning.
Davide King (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia was a democracy. I simply pointed out that you violated a rule.

"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion."

You have directly notified users for the reason that you know they want more criticism in the article (and therefore would side with you). This is nearly word for word what WP:VOTESTACKING is.

I am assuming good faith, I don't think you're writing in bad faith. I am simply pointing what I believe to be votestacking. Lastly, I appreciate the kind words about my knowledge of Wikipedia. This account isn't a sockpuppet account. Alleycat1995 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh no I got pinged by Davide King. I don't like getting pinged.

Firstly, I ain't reading your entire convo, was generally ignoring it. Secondly, let's calm it down a bit and not start talking about sockpuppets unless it's actually relevant, as it's never helpful. I was also a relatively knowledgeable Wikipedian about 15 years ago and otherwise a "new user" here. It's very likely people create new accounts with new devices, from new homes, with new lives, etc. It's not necessarily malicious, nor sockpuppetry, can just be using a different account.

Thirdly @Alleycat1995, please never assume what I want. I did initially think the article lacked enough criticism (or any). Now the summary has been updated, there is a controversy/misinformation section, so I'm not going to wade into your disgareements over POV regarding the MAGA Communism section to be honest. Overall I think the article is more balanced, he does come across as a far-right grifter for anyone paying attention, so he's welcome to his crank-based theories.

If anything I'd be referring it as a subsection for the MAGA page, where it should be really, to get rid of it here. I realised recently there's still no real reason it's on Jackson Hinkle's page, apart from there "isn't anywhere else for it". Ie the homelesspage page theory. But Hinkle didn't invent the idea, as far as I understand, so he doesn't deserve the indirect credit either. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to say I agree that MAGA is a better page than here for having a MAGA communism section that the term redirects to. It’s kind of really obvious, so I don’t know why nobody suggested it before BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It was already suggested to merge MAGA Communism with the Jackson Hinkle page. That doesn't mean it can't be on the MAGA page, but I don't think it's significant enough to be there. Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's not significant enough to be there, it's not significant enough to be here. It's either significant or it's not. MAGA page actually has a lot of room surprisingly, as it's just a topic about how many different ways you can say and use a slogan. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a copy/paste of the article. It could be included in the MAGA article, I'll get around to that unless someone else does it first. Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a lede there, but the whole section. Ie proposing for it to be moved to the MAGA talk page to see if they are "happy" to accept it. Ultimately that's where it belongs until it becomes an independent page on it's own merit. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an WP:RFC or WP:AFD, and I did not go to their talk pages WP:CANVASSING. In fact, I did not even think about it and did not understand your comment at first. Then I got it, but obviously that was not my intention. You also did not seem to have a problem when I pinged in the other discussion Bobfrombrocklet and Freedomandsolidarity. It is just the users who are most active involved are you, I, Bobfrombrockley, Freedomandsolidarity, and those two users I pinged. Since I had already pinged the first two, I thought of pinging the others as well, but any user is welcome to weigh in on this wording issue. Also as they noted themselves, you made too much assumption: just because they said the article lacked enough criticism, it does not mean that they still think that or that it automatically means they agree with me on this issue of wording. Davide King (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion."

You may not have known that what you were doing was votestacking, but you did notify those users because you thought they would agree with you. The assumptions I made were only because you had made them first when you notified them with this: "I believe CNC and PK are two users who said there was not enough criticism and the article was too positive towards Hinkle, so they may be helpful with their comments on this and whether they have an issue with the green-coloured part I quoted."

I didn't have a problem in the other discussion with you notifying people because that was not a violation of WP:VOTESTACKING Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"... but you did notify those users because you thought they would agree with you", please do not assume things. On re-reading my message, I can see your concerns and why you would think that. I would have reworded it differently (it was very late at night and I was getting sleepy when I wrote that), but I can assure you that was not my intention. Can we please move on now? Davide King (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to say you're still jumping to conclusions here, I can see exactly why Davide King pinged who he did. He pinged the users who have made the most edits and most vocal: [2] [3]

Sometimes those people won't agree with you. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. There was no malice on my part, and if I gave them the impression I was "votestacking", I reiterate that was not my intention, I was getting sleepy so I could have wrote that part better, more clear of what I meant (e.g. users who have made the most edits and the most vocal but who had not wrote here in a while), and less ambigious. I apologize if that made you think I was violating that policy, it was not my intention.
Davide King (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I will agree with the previous posts. This is not an RFC or other discussion. The users pinged such as myself have been active editing and on the talk page, so canvassing is not an issue here. I stand by my previous station that the article as it was was too positive and not representative of the coverage that Hinkle has gotten, though it is in a better state now. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Local News says he was born in 1999.

Jackson Hinkle was 13 at the beginning of 2013. (https://www.sanclementetimes.com/grom-of-the-week-jackson-hinkle/) We know from his post that he was born on September 15, 1999. (https://web.archive.org/web/20230929094641/https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1702790324488167810). Using local news and his own post. It’s clear his birthday was on September 15, 1999. Why argue he’s years younger than he actually is? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that has already been fixed. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear at all that he was born September 15, 1999. Not even 1999 as there are no reliable sources.

Multiple unreliable sources claim his DOB as June 7th 2001, so let's not become one of them: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Another unreliable source claims it's September 16th 1999 [9] and another guessing it's instead September 11th 1999 [10]

What we do know is he claims he was born in 1999, but an RS says he's 22, suggesting he was born in 2001. [11]

Based on the san clemente article and these [12] [13] he was born in 1999, or even January 2000.

I've searched pretty hard for his DOB, it simply isn't available it seems. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I experienced the same. I thought that the Instagram post had solved it, but you were correct to note that it is "never explicitly said that the 15th is his birthday as opposed to him just posting it on Sept. 15th, or the 15th being just an outing to the Bolshoi around the time of his birthday as a gift". Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I see we are now guessing he was born in September. That's dissapointing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In an interview with Piers Morgan on July 26, 2023 he states he's 23 years old (Start watching at 6:00). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwIXs61O9DY&ab_channel=PiersMorganUncensored

His public Instagram from 2022 and 2023 both show him announcing his birthday in September.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CinW7SqJh4z/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== MFRodeo (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously unreliable sources should not factor into this. I did not see the Guardian article date, but it seems to be an error. The San Clementine Times piece is from an era where Hinkle couldn't have had a motive to mislead or lie about his age and that supports a 1999 or Jan. 2000 birth as opposed to a 2001 birth. We can use Instagram per WP:BLPSELFPUB and looking at the frequency of posting, the date of the RT interview, the the posts before and after the birthday post in 2023 also being in September, it should be safe to assume that it is a September birthday in this case. That seems to match up with the dates given in all the other RS at the time of publication, with the exception of The Guardian. Perhaps we may want to add a note that at least one RS, the Guardian, suggested a different date. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s lied about his age. Such claims without evidence are unhelpful. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Vice news Article references positive reception as well as skepticism to the MAGA Communist discussions raised at the trump rally

It’s not helpful from a information POV to exclude all information down to just skeptical which heavily skews what the article actually said: “It would be great if everyone could get together and get on the same page,” one man tells him.

FURTHERMORE, the VICE article directly says: The people in his video mostly nod along to his leading questions, interjecting to make boilerplate remarks like “things have got to change” and “Ukraine is a money grab.”

IT WOULD BE MASSIVELY BIASED TO EXCLUDE THIS INFO DESCRIBING IT BY RS. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What specific change are you objecting to or proposing? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe this, which had been reverted by Patar knight because "that analysis is not in the Vice article, which in no way describes the reception as positive". Davide King (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d already removed the “received positively” once as OR and exceeding the source, so I think we can be certain there is no consensus for that. The following details about nodding are just too trivial to mention in any article, and I have absolutely no place in this article which is about somebody who wasn’t even there in that instance. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it could stay without mention of "positive" wording and the "nodding" part, as it was before, but it is not a big deal to me. Davide King (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, "nodding along' is neutral at best. Some people nod along to agree but many nod as just a behavioral tic to politely show you're ostensibly paying attention. "Make boilerplate remarks" hardly seems like the people spoken too were actually deeply engaged with it. The article also notes elsewhere that Haz was selling MAGA Communism to a "skeptical audience" which is also not indicative that there was a positive reception per se. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Globalism" in lede

@Davide King You wrote that this should kept in the lead:

"Hinkle and his show shifted to an American conservative and conspiratorial tone, agitating around an alleged globalist threat"

on the basis of this:

"the Vice piece supports that claim, and references to Soros, who is often implicated in globalism conspiracy theories, are enough in the body for it to be in the lead"

The Vice piece supports the claim that Jackson is fighting against globalism with the single sentence: "Recently, Hinkle has agitated around the “globalist” threat" But that's the problem. It's a single sentence. The more important information regarding the vice article, the information about "MAGA Communism" is buried in the middle of a paragraph. My argument is not that Vice doesn't say he's against globalism, it's just undue weight for the lede section.

Additionally, the article does not refer to globalism at all and the lede should reflect the information in the article.

Lastly, we've already had a discussion above about including "globalism" in the lede. Only this time the suggestion is associated with Hinkle himself instead of "MAGA Communism" (Can they even be separated?) There's been no WP:CONSENSUS for having this much weight towards "globalism"

In conclusion, my suggestion is to not include these words: "agitating around an alleged globalist threat" on the basis of 1) The source doesn't give that much weight to support it being in the lede. 2) Globalism isn't mentioned at all in the article. 3) We've had this discussion already and haven't come to a consensus about it. Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the source is mainly about MAGA Communism, so the bits about Hinkle holds more weight. Indeed, when it is about Hinkle, it literally says: "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." Would you say that his support for Putin and his apparances on right-wing cable shows should also be removed from the lead because this source gives it a single sentence? Second of all, I took that wording from @Solidarityfreedom (see here), so it appears you are the only one who is complaining about this. As I wrote in my edit summary, even though it is not explicitily worded out, the use of globalist in the lead is also supported in the body by his quote on George Soros. As Vice notes, that term is most commonly used as an antisemitic dog-whistle and Soros is Jewish.
Davide King (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the source is mainly about MAGA Communism, so the bits about Hinkle holds more weight.* Indeed, when it is about Hinkle, it literally says: "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." Would you say that his support for Putin and his apparances on right-wing cable shows should also be removed from the lead because this source gives it a single sentence? Second of all, I took that wording from @Solidarityfreedom (see here), so it appears you are the only one who is complaining about this. As I wrote in my edit summary, even though it is not explicitily worded out, the use of globalist in the lead is also supported in the body by his quote on George Soros. As Vice notes, that term is most commonly used as an antisemitic dog-whistle and Soros is Jewish.
Davide King (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

*By that, I mean to say that this Wikipedia article is about Hinkle, not MAGA Communism, so what the source says about Hinkle is the most important (several other sources are note specifically about Hinkle but we take the bits that are about him, while trying to keep him in the context the source put him), and Vice found it significant enough to mention the globalist bit. Pro-Putin views and conpiracy theories and related misinformation, globalist dog-whistle, and appearances on right-wing show are indeed what Hinkle became notable, and Vice supports this.
Davide King (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

MAGA Communism is tied to Hinkle. What is said about MAGA Communism can also be applied to Hinkle considering he created it. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a reference to the "globalist" threat in the article. I've pointed this out in the discussion we had about this above. There is no consensus for "globalism" in the lede.

You ask "Would you say that his support for Putin and his apparances on right-wing cable shows should also be removed from the lead because this source gives it a single sentence?" This is a separate issue that we can discuss later.

I would also disagree with @Solidarityandfreedom if they believe the sentence should be included in the lede. Maybe they will disagree and then the consensus will be against me and the sentence should be included. It's better to be cautious in the meantime and not include this information that we've already discussed and haven't found a consensus for. It violates WP:OR to conclude "globalist threat" from the comments about George Soros unless the source directly says it, which I don't see any evidence of. Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Is not MAGA Communism a creation of Haz? Either way, MAGA Communism is clearly anti-globalist, and it is one of its key components. What you describe as a "seperate issue" is in fact the whole issue. You argue that we should not have the globalist wording in the lead because it is just a sentence in the Vice article (again, it is about Hinkle himself, who is the subject of this Wikipedia article!), but that would equally apply to the examples I provided you. Do you support removing those parts of the lead? WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, and the source clearly supports the claim that the globalist dog-whistle, pro-Putinism, and right-wing cables appearances are something that is notable of Hinkle, which is the subject of this article, not MAGA Communism... I also suggest you to revert yourself and restore the previous version, since you are the only one opposing that wording, while there is at least me and another user who support it (unless they state otherwhise). If you can gain consensus to remove it, it will be removed; until then, it should stay like that. Davide King (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hinkle and Haz created it as a group project. MAGA Communism according to the Vice and Compact article is against globalism, but that's not at all what's at the center. I don't want to distract from the topic by going into discussion about the other issues you brought up, but we can create separate sections regarding those issues. I'm not saying that WP:OR applies to talk pages. I am saying that it would be a violation of WP:OR if you take criticism of Soros as criticism of globalism. They are not the same thing. Lastly, did @Soldarityandfreedom say anything about that sentence being sufficient enough to be included in the lede? When was it moved to the lede section? I agree that it can be in the article, but not in the lede. No other editors besides us have given their perspective and there already isn't a consensus on including "globalism" in the lede. Again, it's better to take this conflict with more caution rather than less. Please do not add this back without consensus. Alleycat1995 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

So you concede that MAGA Communism is indeed against globalism. You then say "but that's not at all what's at the center", and I say this article is about Hinkle, and the Vice article about Hinkle says he is known for having "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." I think that is enough for the lead. Opposition to globalism does not even need to be the centre of MAGA Communism, since this article is about Hinkle and what sources writes about Hinkle himself are particularly important. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, and wait for other users who contributed to the article and its discussion here, for example @Bobfrombrockley, to weigh in. Just one final note: WP:OR is not "one user expressing their view, such source analysis". I was simply arguing in support of my thesis, namely that there are sources and support in the body for it to be due for the lead, which falls under the "policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" exemption. Davide King (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

One last thing. Since you say "Hinkle and Haz created it as a group project", which I can agree with, "MAGA Communism is tied to Hinkle" no longer applies as a good reason to remove the wording in question, since MAGA Communism cannot be tied exclusively to Hinkle. Instead, it can be tied to the globalist dog-whistle, since the article quotes both Haz and Hinkle railing against globalists. So what is the reason based on policy for why you think the wording should be removed from the lead? Davide King (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

MAGA Communism according to the Vice article includes being against globalism. This isn't something to "concede". But anyway the source does not put enough emphasis on it for it to be included in the lede. The source you are referring to is not about Hinkle's relationship with globalism. It is a passing mention. There isn't enough emphasis for it to be in the lede. I agree that WP:OR is not "one user expressing their view, such source analysis". But when you conclude he is against globalism from his mentions of Soros, that is WP:OR.

Can you explain the logic of how "MAGA Communism being created by both Haz and Hinkle" concludes with MAGA Communism not being tied to Hinkle? And where did you get MAGA Communism being tied to globalism? According to the Vice article, being against globalism isn't at the center of it. Alleycat1995 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"But anyway the source does not put enough emphasis on it for it to be included in the lede." You may have had a point if this article was named "MAGA Communism". Instead, this article is named "Jackson Hinkle", so what you describe as a passing mention, which I do not question, is in fact the most important thing for an article named "Jackson Hinkle". So again, since this article is named "Jackson Hinkle", not "MAGA Communism", and the sentence about Hinkle, the subject of this Wikipedia article, says what is quoted above, it can be concluded that the globalist dog-whistle is lead worthy. Just like his support of Putin and right-wing cable news appearances. As simple as that.

I did not say "MAGA Communism not being tied to Hinkle", I explicitily added the exclusively caveat. What I meant to say is that the globalist dog-whistle can be tied to MAGA Communism, since both founders are quoted as saying it. This may not be enough to be for the lead of "MAGA Communism", though I think it would be absurd to not have a brief mention of it as one of its positions since, as you wrote, "MAGA Communism according to the Vice article includes being against globalism." It is certainly lead worthy for an article named "Jackson Hinkle", since Vice ties Hinkle's globalist dog-whistle to his pro-Putinism and right-wing cable news appearances as something that he is notable for.

Now please it is better if we take a break and both of us leave space for other users to weight in. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. The only difference is that instead of attributing this to MAGA Communism, you're attributing it to Jackson Hinkle. You haven't responded to my question of how you conclude that MAGA Communism is not tied to Hinkle from "MAGA Communism being created by both Haz and Hinkle" It seems like it would conclude the opposite. That MAGA Communism is tied to Hinkle since he created it. A one-time passing mention does not necessarily mean it should be included in the lede. However, you want to give "globalism" the same amount of emphasis as "MAGA Communism" in the lede, yet there is much more weight in the source on MAGA Communism. Instead of adding more emphasis to MAGA Communism in the lede, it would be much more easier to remove the mention of globalism. It's undue weight. @Solidarityandfreedom included the sentence about globalism, but not in the lede. I believe it should remain that way. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion @Davide King. I admire how passionate you and @Alleycat1995 are about this page, and I feel it's a very important one given Hinkle's current influence on Twitter. Notably this page is now being referenced by Google in traditional fashion and is the top search hit after his Twitter, whereas previously it was barely on the first page.

With this, there may be more wikipedians looking to contribute, but based on the discussions and current amount of ongoing contributions it could well be offputting. Personally I've been holding back in order to not get in the way, and much of what I was hoping to improve about the page has already occurred in recent days, but still intend to contribute.

As for this obsession over the Vice article. I'm going to remind you both There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications, it's not a generally reliable source and therefore we shouldn't be heavily relying on it period. The only reason the MAGA Communism section still exists is because of The New Republic reference, that briefly mentions it's existence, which on it's own wouldn't be enough to have an entire section.

For the reasons mentioned above, I'd calm down over editing the MC section and using Vice references. I suspect that soon enough there will be other reliable sources to improve that section, but until then it seems pointless. I'd say it's pretty likely someone comes along and culls it to a single paragraph. Arguably it's a section that'd be better sitting as a draft until more reliable sources appear, in hindsight. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As for Vice, I have already noted that. "Yellow" or "questionable" does not mean it is unreliable either or that it cannot be used. It is simply one of the few sources that directly address MAGA Communism. Anyway, since you may not have read the whole discussion (I do not blame you for it and I would totally understand you :D), and I thank you for your comments, what are your thoughts about the following wording (with the bolded part the issue at question)? Hinkle and his show shifted to an American conservative and conspiratorial tone, agitating around an alleged globalist threat. Davide King (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• There is another reliable source on MAGA communism, which is predominantly about JH, which I haven’t got round to editing into the article at all. It does mention globalism, but in relation to Haz: He isn’t the only “MAGA-Communist” tying contradictory beliefs together with a common thread of antisemitism. Haz al Din, a Marxist-Leninist youtuber, called for “workers striking” to come together with the “MAGA industrial working class”. “We kick out the globalists,” he said. “We kick out George Soros”.[14] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Bobfrombrockley for the further source. I believe that same quote from Haz is also included in the Vice article. This seems to support what I was saying, namely that the globalist dog-whitsle is a significant part of MAGA Communism, so I do not understand what are the issues Alleycat1995 have with the following wording (with the bolded part the issue at question)? Hinkle and his show shifted to an American conservative and conspiratorial tone, agitating around an alleged globalist threat. I did not even wrote myself that (it was Freedomandsolidarity), but I think it is a nice summary and I fail to see how it is undue or where the issue is at. About Hinkle, this is what Vice said: "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." His support for Putin and right-wing cable news appearances are all in the lead, so I do not see why his railing against globalism is undue for the lead when those are three things Vice says are what Hinkle is notable for, are supported and not contradicted by other sources, and railling against globalism seems to be a main or common thing of MAGA Communism. Davide King (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your TL;DR summary and rationale sounds logical to me. To be honest I only got as far as "On a bright Saturday afternoon" for that Vice article, but noticeably the article leads with the "globalist threat" when introducing Hinkle, so it totally makes sense. Maybe I should just read the article, I just assume it's mostly Vice-gibberish in there and hard to pick out any relevant information.

  Certainly based on the JC article it does back up his interest in George Soros as quoted in the article, and the dog-whistles that go with that, even if they are just regurgitating what Vice wrote. Ideally there'd be another source as well though regarding everything that Vice claim. It's very easy for them to pick out a sentence he said in 2022 (no doubt pandering towards the OANN openly far-right audience), but actually it not be his core politics and instead something Vice have taken a magnifier too (this is what they do).

  Hope that kind of explains my concerns. Ideally we've have this quote from him somewhere as a disclaimer:

  "I do everything for the clout, you will never see me do something not for the clout." [15] (classic grifter)

  With that in mind, he'll literally say anything to anyone if it get's him views, this is the point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that’s unfair as he’s not established as a grifter by most RS secondary sources, one I think calls him that, but equally so you have like the InfoBae article and some others calling him a journalist and showing a more favorable side. So I’d say refrain from adding grifter. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  One sentence is not significant especially considering there is only 1 mention of MAGA Communism in the lede. The source about MAGA Communism is not centered around "globalism". This is too much weight. Like with the criticism section, adding "globalism" to the lede would give too much weight to it unless you write more about MAGA Communism was something there was a bit of in the article before. Freedomandsolidarity had written "Hinkle and his show shifted to an American conservative and conspiratorial tone, agitating around an alleged globalist threat" Which isn't something I have a problem with unless it's in the lede, which he didn't include it under. Putin, OANN, and George Soros being quoted in the article doesn't say anything about "globalism". The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. Seems like the consensus is against me with this one though so go ahead and include it. Alleycat1995 (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ironically this is why I was happy to stay out of this discussion, because I do understand your concerns and know how Vice works when they write about topics they don't understand like tabloid junkies. Admittedly it's Haz that says "We kick out the globalists. We kick out George Soros.", not Hinkle, it's just that he follows the MAGA Communist ideology that is based on this.

  I wouldn't say the consensus is against you, I said it makes sense putting it in there, as that's what's written about Hinkle, but doesn't mean I agree. At best I'm abstaining from the consensus but would prefer it not be included in the lede, because I don't find it particularly accurate. I wasn't even convinced about labelling him a conspiracy theorist either to be honest for the same reasons.

  By comparison there are a few reliable sources describing him as a "MAGA Communist", anti-Israel and pro-Russia, as well the whole misinformation side of these, but not a lot on the whole globalist side of things for the lede. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I still do not get how Vice and now The Jewish Chronicle showing both Haz and Hinkle (the co-founders of MAGA Communism) using the globalist dog-whistle, and how that is not significant. "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." This is what Hinkle is notable for according to Vice. Additionally, while those refs I am going to list should not be used in the article, they all show that the globalist dog-whistle is a characteristic of Hinkle. He wrote on Instagram: "The globalists don't stand a chance 🥷 @jordan.b.peterson." His pro-Russia views are placed within the context of his opposition to globalism, "about why the globalists fear Russia and China", and is quoted as saying: "The people that are our enemies are really this globalist class of finance capital that are sucking out every last bit of breath from the American public in the working class." Globalist and anti-globalism are a significant part of MAGA Communism and Hinkle, and are terms used by both Haz and Hinkle in propagadating MAGA Communism. What more is needed? Davide King (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, digging deeper I see your point. I just don't trust Vice when when they take one quote and roll with it, when they could be providing a lot more examples, but in this case they do appear to be representing things accurately. I'm happy for it to go in the lede then given the additional context. I forget there are only really two articles that describe Hinkle's politics, the rest only discuss his actions with passing labels. Ultimately Hinkle wants to be known as being against globalists, so it shouldn't come across as a criticism or negative in the lede what so ever. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  More sources show that it's more significant. My point of contention was around the lack of attention to "MAGA Communism" when compared to "globalism". My view is that MAGA Communism should have much more airtime because that's how it is in the sources cited. Entire articles are written about MAGA Communism, but globalism is mentioned only a few times. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think I get what you are saying. Would you be fine as a compromise to have the globalist part restored, if we also write a sentence about MAGA Communism? The reason why the lead only says "MAGA Communism", without explaining what it is, it is because we could not agree with how to word that either. I supported that we said "a call for Marxist–Leninists to support the MAGA movement against the status quo and globalism", but if we use globalist earlier, this can be reworded to say "a call for Marxist–Leninists to support the MAGA movement and incitate a populist revolution", as we say in the body. You supported having "revolutionary potential" or something to that effect; this wording would include something to the same effect. Would that be a good choice in your opinion? Davide King (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have a problem with this as we don’t really see it being said have Marxists leninists support MAGA. Hinkle never said only MLs care about the working class and this language isn’t used in terms of ML supporting MAGA. I will brainstorm and re-read article to look for alternatives Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just an FYI I modified the lede as the sentence "which represents a call for working-class supporters to ally with the MAGA movement", also had "and incitate a populist revolution, conspiracy theories, etc" which I removed, due to the implication. Will leave it for someone else to modify or improve, but personally wasn't keen on the length of that description either, it was suffering from wordiness, especially for the lede. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that Marxist–Leninists is better to be avoided. I wrote that here as that was the previous wording used but already in my actual edit, even before reading this, I had avoided it because I had reached your same conclusion. Davide King (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  It also makes sense as Hinkle is considered anti-Israel, and as both Vice and The Jewish Chronicle, among others, note how globalist is an antisemitic dog-whistle used by the far right. It is certainly lead worthy, and perhaps we should mention, alongside his support for Putin, his anti-Israel views since he attracted international attention during the Israel-Hamas war.
  Davide King (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  His anti-israel views should be referenced in lede too, that's acknowledged by numerous sources, I thought they already had but not quite I realise. I'd avoid the JC article to exclusively substantiate claims though, as per bias rough consensus. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Unrealiable sources template

Has this been addressed as per WP:WTRMT? There are now around 20+ RS since this banner was correctly placed. Based on my searching, there aren't any more reliable sources to include as of yet, they've more or less all been used now.

Unless it's meant to stay in order to include more in the future? That's not really clear under WP:WNTRMT.

Pinging some users who previously raised concerns over sources: @HadesTTW @BobFromBrockley @KetchupSalt + other contributors @DavideKing @Solidarityandfreedom @Alleycat1995 @Patar knight

Any feedback related to WP:NPOV would be useful, as I know this was also a major concern previously from some pinged users. To me it seems more or less sorted for now until there are more sources and information to include. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is in a better state now re: sourcing and there's no need for the orange tag since individual tags on sources can be used IMO. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Improving Balance of Article

I made a change to the article: "Although MAGA Communism may seem paradoxical, it represents the idea that the left can unite working-class whites if they reject identity politics."

This is reflected in the source: "From a distance, the rhetoric seems almost impossibly contradictory — like a populist gag ironically draped in theory, or some bizarro “Dark Brandon” meme for tankie nerds. But it also represents the ultimately reactionary and harmful idea that,  if the left can somehow cast aside pesky race and identity issues, it can bind together working-class whites who have been attracted to reactionary projects."

This change improves the balance of the article by putting more emphasis on the description of "MAGA Communism". Currently, the MAGA Communism section has too much emphasis on criticism when compared to the amount in the source. I had tried to remove some of the unnecessary criticism such as this: "Sam Seder, another left-wing critic, commented of an interview Hinkle gave about MAGA Communism, saying: "This is such a word salad that I can't follow what the hell he's talking about." but others did not want it removed.

However, @Czello reverted it with the explanation: "this is clearly less balanced and contains an opinion" Can you explain how it's less balanced? And how exactly does it contain an opinion? Alleycat1995 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hinkle screenshot

RE: "Screenshots are used all the time, but they must comply with the WP:NFCC. A screenshot does not automatically make it free and clear of the underlying copyrights. The first example of an unacceptable non-free image use at WP:NFC#UUI literally lists living people as an exception, with only a few exceptions that do not apply to Hinkle." @Patar knight

To avoid further revision conflicts here:

Sourcing:

• WP:NFC#CS: Screenshots and video clips

Identifying the movie, television show, or other video source, its copyright owner, and the approximate timestamp where the shot or clip was taken.

Acceptable use:

• WP:NFCI: Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos).

This of course includes living people. You're confusing a picture with a screenshot. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Screenshots are just a subset of images. Using a screenshot does not magically mean the NFCC do not apply, or else it would be extremely easy to find pictures of most living people since you could just take a screenshot of any copyrighted photo available online. That does not happen because of the longstanding consensus on unacceptable image use at WP:NFC#UUI:

1. Pictures of people still alive... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. For some...retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable...

Jackson Hinkle is not dead nor retired, but in fact alive and very actively publicly, so we cannot use non-free images of him.

WP:NFC#CS is about how to use screenshots when the use is acceptable, which is not the case here. WP:NFCI allows non-free images if there is critical commentary of the work in question. There is no critical commentary of that video in the article, so it would not apply here. Even if there was, the screenshot should be of a portion of the video that discusses the part of the video being analyzed and not of Hinkle. As it stands, the screenshot is being used to provide an image of Hinkle not of a work being analyzed in the article. This is analogous to UUI8, which does not allow an image of a Barry Bonds baseball card to illustrate his article, but would allow it to be used if there is discussion of the card itself. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFC#CS quite clearly states: "where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article". and "depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices,". The item is Hinkle's show, which is a prominent aspect in the article in fact.

There's nothing transformative of an image of a baseball card, completely unrelated. The fact you think screenshots are pictures tell me you don't know what you're talking about. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no actual sourced commentary on any of the visual aspects of the show in the article and the show is only namedropped. If we were to use a screenshot from the show, it should be of an specific clip that is actually discussed in a reliable source. Here, the image is cropped to be serviceable as an image of Hinkle and the purpose in the NFCC template gives "Main image for article" as the purpose, which belies any claim that this is actually the subject of sourced commentary.

You seem to under the mistaken belief that "pictures" only refers to photographs. Pictures and images are interchangeable terms for works in a visual medium. Screenshots are a subset of pictures/images. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

How would we use a screenshot for the show, if he's still alive? You made it clear on your first revert "Photographs of living people are never acceptable" followed by "Pictures of people still alive..." . So now you're backtracking this claim after all?

Just to clarify, as I think it might be helpful for the future given your role here, the whole moving the goalposts on your argument is very frustrating for those on the receiving end, it makes it seem like you're making it up as you go along.

• First you say you can't use a photograph of a living person, which is completely unrelated to the discussion
• Then you create a stawman argument over screenshotting pictures, again completely unrelated to a video screenshot
• Finally you backtrack to talking about the context of usage isn't sufficient, but otherwise a screenshot could be ok

Can you not see how it sounds like you're making it up as you go along, even if you know what you're talking about?

My point is screenshots don't come under the same copyright category as pictures, even if they are an image, hence why there are different guidelines for using them - something we finally agree on. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Also we're not talking about a screenshot of a copyrighted photo, but of a video, so no point in straw-man arguments here about taking a screenshot of a photo which would be completely different. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Videos can be copyrighted as well, and presumably The Daily Dive is copyrighted before it was taken down, or else we wouldn't have to try and get it in as NFC. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, unless there's some confusion, it's "Pictures of people still alive" at WP:NFC#UUI, not screenshots. Screenshots are a completely different copyright. Hence you find guidelines for acceptable use of images here WP:NFCI, no mention of living people being exempt.

Please just return it once you've learnt the different between a picture and a screenshot. If it's not obvious, a picture is entirely someone else's work. A screenshot is partially the work of the creator. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright does apply differently to screenshots compared to original images because screenshots are a derivative work, but that does not mean that screenshots aren't pictures just because they're not photographs.

Even if that was not the case, the body paragraph before the numbered list at WP:NFCI makes it clear that: Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia. WP:NFC#UUI says: ...taking a new free picture [of people still alive] as a replacement [for a non-free image]... (which is almost always considered possible). So if it is almost always considered possible to take a picture of a living person, then non-free images of living people could almost always reasonably be replaced by free images.

You are not some legal genius that has figured out some trick to be able to use non-free images of living people on Wikipedia after all these years. You are free to ask at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions board. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The more relevant thing here is "English Wikipedia has adopted a purposely-stricter standard for fair-use of copyrighted images and other works, called the non-free content criteria", which I've had to waste my time stumbling across. It would of just been helpful to explain that what you're able to do legally more or less doesn't mean Wikipedia wants that to happen, or will let it happen.

A screenshot of Hinkle on his political show, when discussing the topic of him as a political commentator, is clearly fair use as the image would be in context. It's obviously not possible to attain a free picture, given it's a private residence, would require permission, etc. Wikipedia's idea of "reasonably could be replaced" is obviously subjective and airing on the side of caution. You could very well argue (legally) a substitute public image of Hinkle is not suitable, in the context of discussing him as a political commentator.

It's not about being a legal genius, it's just about knowing the basics of the law surrounding video screenshots, and also a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy surrounding fair use as non-free, which is a lot more extreme.

I get it the project doesn't want to deal with takedown and lawsuits etc. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

Am I alone in thinking that "Crazy Progressives" and the anonymous "America First" twitter account are not reliable sources and therefore should not be included among the opinions because not due? (Re this diff, which reverted my removal of them.) (I think the ONUS is on the editor who wants to add them to get consensus, but I won't remove as that would be edit-warring.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am the editor that added these sources - Crazy Progressives has not yet been found to be uncredible by Wikipedia and its whole purpose is to raise awareness of progressivism and give coverage to American progressives, like Sam Seder and Krystal Ball. The source is useful to show the wide-spectrum of labels used to describe Hinkle, with the Crazy Progressives site describing him as a "progressive", while other sources label him a communist, a conservative, or even a member of the far-right. The AF Post account is an "America First" twitter news account, that covers events in the MAGA movement and movements adjacent to MAGA. Their post is useful in showing the divide between the more-typical MAGA adherents and the MAGA Communists - AF Post does not consider Hinkle to be a conservative or a member of the MAGA movement, but rather a "communist commentator". The AF Post, however, is an anonymous twitter account and a better source would likely be beneficial, so I added the "better source needed" tag to the article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just found that Thomas Fazi, of Compact Magazine, describes Hinkle as a communist commentator as well, writing: "Jackson Hinkle, a popular communist commentator." This source is more credible and I will replace the existing AF Post source. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

I don't think we should say that Crazy Progressives is a reliable source just because WP has not yet discussed and decided it's unreliable. It's an anonymously run aggregation site for extremely online fringe opinions (exactly as its name promises). The onus is on you, if you want to include this, to persuade us it's reliable or otherwise noteworthy.

By the way, I don't think we should give anywhere near as much space to Fazi as we do. He's a non-notable controversialist and Compact is a fascist-adjacent fringe magazine that I don't we should see as reliable. The only reason it's here is because he's one of the very few people who's written about MAGA communism. Now a lot of more reliable sources have started writing about Hinkle, I don't think we need him any more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Compact has not been found to be unreliable on Wikipedia and the article from the site is incredible useful for this page as Fazi outlines two differing interpretations of MAGA Communism and highlights its ambiguity and lack of ideological consistency, which is important for explaining the topic in the section highlighting its reception. I also think that calling Compact "fascist-adjacent" is something that can be characterized as highly controversial and debatable as they regularly platform Marxist feminists. The Crazy Progressives site also doesn't highlight "extremely online fringe opinions" but rather mainstream political commentators like Krystal Ball (https://crazyprogressives.com/ts-teams/krystal-ball/) and Sam Seder (https://crazyprogressives.com/ts-teams/sam-seder/) that espouse Progressivism. The site's name is a jab at Conservatives who view all left-wingers as "crazy Moonbats" and such. You can personally believe that Progressivism is an "extremely online fringe opinion" (which I don't think you do) but that is just a personal opinion and should not influence your editing on Wikipedia. The source from the Crazy Progressives site is useful in showing that a great number of differing labels have be used to describe Hinkle - which makes sense since he's part of a syncretic, often contradictory, political movement that seemingly draws on progressive–populism, Marxism–Leninism, and conservativism. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, since Fazi doesn't have a Wikipedia page I think we could rework the section that "shouts him out". Since Compact is notable to have a Wikipedia page, the section could read "An article from Compact highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the objectives of MAGA Communism, and outlined two potential interpretations. One perspective, attributed to Hinkle, proposes uniting far-left and far-right factions, without abandoning their distinct ideologies, beneath an 'anti-elite umbrella'. Alternatively, another viewpoint, attributed to Haz Al-Din, advocates transcending conventional ideologies and the traditional left–right political spectrum to establish a novel populist working class–elites dynamic." We could also describe the ideological stance of Compact, backed by sources, which is often described as syncretic (https://jacobin.com/2023/08/sohrab-ahmari-tyranny-inc-book-review-conservatism-anti-capitalism-social-domination-conservatism) or populist (https://reason.com/2022/03/23/in-a-new-magazine-the-illiberal-right-and-the-illiberal-left-converge/). It could read "An article from the syncretic populist Compact online magazine." Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My main issue is not with Fazi himself. I think the previous wording was fine (there is no need for the description of the paper, we do not do that for the other sources): "Thomas Fazi of Compact highlights the ambiguity surrounding the objectives of MAGA Communism, and outlines two potential interpretations. Fazi suggests that one perspective, attributed to Hinkle, proposes uniting the far-left and far-right factions beneath an "anti-elite umbrella". Alternatively, Fazi cites another viewpoint attributed to Haz Al-Din, which advocates transcending conventional ideologies and the traditional left–right political spectrum to establish a novel populist working class–elites dynamic." It was also placed at the bottom, so it was not given too much prominence. Because it is one of the few pieces describing MAGA Communism, I think it is not a big issue if it stays for now. The real elephant in the room is the whole re-structuring you did, adding "American communism" to the infobox and related categories, when no reliable source have taken his communist claims seriously and described him as a conservative, far-right influencer. Plus, a series of addition that are sourced to his own Twitter and other questionable or unreliable sources.
Davide King (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And the other main issue is that you reverted to your favoured version, rather than the stable version, despite my pleas to have the stable version restored for the time being as all your siginficant edits and re-structuring are discussed and actually have consensus. I was not paying attention for some time to this article, so I missed your edits. I would have reverted you already back then, so you cannot claim silent consensus. Davide King (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with the concerns of Mt.FijiBoiz, I think the Crazy Progressives source and the article done by syncretic-populist Conpact Magazines do a good job of showing other ways in which Hinkle has been described, neither having been deemed unreliable sources for this information. I favor the edits of Mt.FijiBoiz and hope to reach a consensus on this. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Compact is indeed syncretic, it’s good to name the author of the Compact article, even if he isn’t that notable, because they publish a range of sources. Compact isn’t quite as eclectic as you suggest though - as far as I can see it doesn’t actually regularly platform any Marxist feminists at all. Also, Sorry but Krystal Ball and Sam Seder - the most mainstream names aggregated by Crazy Progressives - aren’t that mainstream. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does consider it fascist adjacent or fringe: Compact (American magazine) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• doesnt

Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Good choice, on how to describe compact magazine look at the RS used to describe it in the Compact Mag wiki article. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I share BobFromBrockley's concerns and have restored the stable version. Please, do not make such significant changes without achieving consensus, we usually restore to the most stable version until consensus for your changes have been achieved. As I said in my edit summaries, most of sources are either questionable or unreliable, even including sourcing to Hinkle's own Twitter account, which may be fine for uncontroversial claims but not the way it was used; if it is the sole source of a claim, it is likely undue if reliable sources are not available.
The significant changes basically turned a neutral article according to reliable sources, such as AFP and The Guardian, describing him as a conservative and far-right influencer to basically questionable sources like RCP, which take at face value Hinkle's self-description and claims, and turned him into a far-left communist. He may have well been a left-wing progressive in the past (we need better sourcing than Crazy Progressives) but reliable sources have described as a MAGA conservative, far-right influencer. Finally, it dismissed Hinkle's disinformation, which reliable sources have called out as being in fact misinformation (with no allegation or allegedly if I recall correctly), to allegations (sic!). It basically turned from an article based on independent, reliable sources to self-referential, to say the least, and essentially represent Fazi's when that is, at best, a minority view or the author's view. I have restored the "Personal life" section, since it was the least controversial part.
Davide King (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This basically sums it up. The talk page should have also summarised how even minor edits have been controversial of late, and taken time to reach consensus. There were/is many problems with these edits. A few examples:

• MAGA Communism adherents call on members of the American working class to ally with members of the MAGA movement, and support Vladimir Putin's Russian forces in the Russo-Ukrainian War and Hamas in the Israel–Hamas war.

MAGA Communism does not support Putin and Hamas, that's just Hinkle.

• He has called images released by Israel of the October 2023 Hamas attack "fake" and has made false claims about the United States' aid to Israel and the potential deployment of the Marines to Gaza

It's not that he's called images fake, it's that they were fake, as per the RS.

• Hinkle has been variously described as "one of the youngest Progressives on the political media landscape", a Marxist, a communist commentator, a conservative commentator, a conservative influencer, a pro-Russia MAGA influencer, a right-wing influencer, a far-right social media influencer, and a far-right YouTuber.

This is case of unreliable sources at the front and reliable at the back. There are many more sources that have labeled Hinkle as far-right or right-wing, otherwise conservative. Fringe and question sources should be added to the back, at best.

• With posts reaching over 20 million views, in November 2023, Hinkle reached 2 million followers on X, where he offers a premium subscription to those wanting to help him "DEFEAT THE ZIONIST LIES".

This is just outright referencing an unreliable source: Twitter. There is no reliable source to say that Hinkle offers a premium subscription to "DEFEAT THE ZIONIST LIES", only that he claims to. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There is ZERO call for the working class to ally with the MAGA Movement found in the Vice article

Instead it says those who care about the working class should ally with the MAGA movement. Throughout the Vice article is says MAGACommunism believes MAGA folk/supporters have the revolutionary potential, representing the largest collective of working people.

From the article: (https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qk4b/what-the-hell-is-magacommunism)

here is my proposed edit for now, I believe it is better than the misleading part that was in before which said it was a call for the working class to ally with the MAGA Movement: ”is a proponent of MAGA Communism, a slogan calling on those who support the working class to ally with the MAGA movement.”

I assume this is where they got the “info” for that in the lede, but if you look you can see that this was a misguided description of MAGA Communism because even this excerpt does not say the working class should ally with the MAGA Movement: “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.”

And throughout the article it’s made clear that Haz and Hinkle believes the MAGA supporters represent the largest segment of the working class: “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.”

references how both Haz AND Hinkle see revolutionary potential in the “MAGA masses”: ““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) 15:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Good catch CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Image

The current image is very low quality. We should find a better one. Alleycat1995 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I'll try to look but funding any image in the public domain about current politicians(?) is difficult. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Euromaidan Press

I thought we'd already covered this one here and here, regarding the reference to "far-left" previously removed by @Davide King due to lack of reliability. For reference, the reliability has been discussed on noticeboard here and here predominantly, and while there is no consensus, there is generally agreement that the source is biased within context of Ukraine/Russia, and can be unreliable, depending on context.

In this context [16], ie an article discussing Russian disinfo and propaganda, it should quite obviously be considered biased against proponents of Russia, and therefore potentially unreliable. I say potentially here, because it may be reliable, but compared to the dozen reliable sources claiming he is either far-right, right-wing, conservative or MAGA - let's summarise this to right side of the political spectrum for convenience sake - it should quite obviously be considered unreliable and completely off the mark. There is no other potentially reliable source claiming he is far-left, which could be due to the paper being written by volunteers, rather than professional journalists.

I'm not opposed to these fringe descriptions of Hinkle; "far-left", "post-left" and "communist" going into the views section, after his predominant views are documented, but in the lede seems like WP:UNDUE weight to me. Just look at the citation count for his predominant views and it should be clear why the others deserve a single line in views section, with their single citations, far away from the lede. Given the clear bias of Euromaidan in this context, it'd also be best to use inline citation to describe Hinkle as "far-left".

As a reminder also, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body. These fringe descriptions are not summaries of the body, they are just regurgitations of the views section. In the body his right-wing views are elaborated on, hence they are appropriate to summarise into lede. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Euromaidan Press is the sole reference for "far-left", and I agree with pretty much eveyrthing you have said. If there are reliable sources that describes him as "communist", "far-left", or whatever else, they can be added. Certainly, the Euromaidan Press is not usable to claim Hinkle is far-left, and certainly not in the lead, because it goes against what more reliable sources have reported and thus it is undue. In fact, the Euromaiden Press does not even describe Hinkle as far-left! It is in reference to his show: "Jackson Hinkle, the founder of the American far-left 'anti-imperialist' outlet The Dive, posed a question on his Twitter account: 'Where is Zelensky?'" So not only it fails WP:NPOV due to being undue and likely not reliable for this claim but it fails WP:VERIFICATION.
Davide King (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Euromaiden Press is one of 4 that broadly reference him as being far-left. Euromaiden Press calls him far-left explicitely, but there are many more (including some that refer to him as "Marxist" that I haven't listed here).

1. This source from Euromaiden Press calls him far-left.
2. This source from Compact calls him communist.
3. This source from Howie Hawkins calls him post-left.
4. This source from In These Times calls him Maga Communist

You write "the Euromaidan Press is not usable to claim Hinkle is far-left, and certainly not in the lead, because it goes against what more reliable sources have reported and thus it is undue."

However, according to WP:CONFLICTING we should "not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect, except in the unusual instance that one source can be demonstrated to be factually erroneous" Thus, this caution should be incorporated. Especially considering this is a biography of a living person, we should not ignore nuance. His show is "The Dive with Jackson Hinkle". Unless you can show there are other people on the "Jackson Hinkle" show, then they are describing him as far-left. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In one of the comments you quoted, @BobFromBrockley specifically calls Euromaiden Press reliable source.

You always write that there are "dozen reliable sources claiming he is either far-right, right-wing, conservative or MAGA, it should quite obviously be considered unreliable and completely off the mark"

However, according to WP:CONFLICTING we should "not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect, except in the unusual instance that one source can be demonstrated to be factually erroneous"

The Euromaidan Press can be discussed further, but I see no reason why these other sources are unreliable.

1. This source from Euromaiden Press calls him far-left.
2. This source from Compact calls him communist.
3. This source from Howie Hawkins calls him post-left.
4. This source from In These Times calls him Maga Communist.

Unless these sources are unreliable, I don't see how they are fringe.

You also wrote: "These fringe descriptions are not summaries of the body, they are just regurgitations of the views section."

But there is an entire section about "MAGA Communism" in the body of the article, and Communism is a far-left political ideology. Additionally, the lead simply describes what Hinkle has been called which means that if he gets called a MAGA Communist, it should be included. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I will try to keep this short. If the others are either unreliable or do not support the claim, there is no conflict here. Wikipedia is about WP:VERIFICATION, not WP:TRUTH. If the more reliable sources calls him either conservative, right-wing, far-right, or MAGA, and only questionable or unreliable sources use labels in conflict with these, or do not explicilt refer to Hinkle as far-left (the Euromaidan Press used it in reference to his show, that is the only thing that can be verifiable from it) it is WP:FALSEBALANCE to claim that there is a conflict among sources (there is not one among the more reliable sources) or that we must put these labels just because there is a source for it. Davide King (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:FALSEBALANCE in this context would be referring to theories claiming Hinkle is far-left. However, that is not what the change is trying to say.

This is what the change is NOT: "Hinkle is a communist".

The change is that "Hinkle has been described as a communist"

This distinction is important because it isn't a theory about Hinkle's political views, it is merely a description, from reliable sources, about what Hinkle has been described as.

If a reliable source calls Hinkle a MAGA Communist, then we can write "Hinkle has been called a MAGA Communist" in the article. The same is true for if a reliable source calls him far-right. I don't know why you don't apply the same standard to both sides. Can you explain? Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Except "communist" has not been used by any generally reliable source. The only source supporting the claim that "communism" is Compact, describing him as "a popular communist commentator". As I wrote below, for all other labels, there is at least more than one source for each label and they are a generally reliable source (e.g. The Guardian). WP:NPOV "means 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." A single source, perhaps not even generally reliable and in fact contradicted by reliable sources, is certainly not a significant view. Davide King (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 4 sources that describe Hinkle as something that is not right-wing (assuming MAGA Communism is not right-wing). This rule of "at least 1 source" must take into consideration the fact that there are 4 of them. If you can show that these sources are unreliable, then I agree that they should not be included. However, since this a BLP, we must tread more carefully on this topic. Instead of dismissing these sources because there are less of them, and because they don't agree with your personal bias, we should include them to make the article more balanced. He has been described as a MAGA Communist by RS, so there's nothing wrong saying that he has been described as a MAGA Communist. This is different from saying that he IS a communist. You still haven't responded to this point. Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, please check WP:PERSONALATTACKS before claiming "because they don't agree with your personal bias". You write "since this a BLP, we must tread more carefully on this topic", indeed that is why you should stop making such changes without consensus. As for MAGA Communism, it is simple enough to say: "He is known [as] a proponent of MAGA Communism, a slogan calling on those who support the working class to ally with the MAGA movement." Davide King (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking you. Your own user page shows your personal bias that exists, and you even believe that it's impossible to not have a bias in the things you write. You also revealed your personal viewpoint (You believe he is a far-right fascist) when you wrote this:

Just because there is communist in it, it does not mean Hinkle is a communist. Just like Adolf Hitler was not a socialist because his movement was called National Socialism; he was a far-right, fascist.

You didn't seem to have a problem with only having 1 source when he was described as an "internet troll", however, you do have a problem when that 1 source describes him as a "MAGA Communist". This is clearly not NPOV. A NPOV would recognize that if a reliable source calls him something, then that can be included in the article.

I am not trying to make a change without consensus. I am trying to understand your perspective which is why I am asking you to address the specific points I've made. Instead of pretending like there are no sources that contradict the far-right perspective, "since this a BLP, we must tread more carefully on this topic" and include the nuanced perspective. You should leave your anarchist bias at the door, just as I have left my bias at the door, and recognize that if WP:RS describes Hinkle as a MAGA Communist, then our article can include this.

The last thing you said was this: "As for MAGA Communism, it is simple enough to say: "He is known [as] a proponent of MAGA Communism, a slogan calling on those who support the working class to ally with the MAGA movement.""

This is a completely different question. Right now, the discussion is about whether or not the article should say "Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist" My perspective is that it SHOULD be included because WP:RS shows that it is. Alleycat1995 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're assuming MAGA Communism is not right wing. It's a cominbation of a right-wing and left-wing ideology, so of course that'd be an assumption. Naturally there would be an argument to say it's on the right, or the left, or even the centre - but this would all be WP:OR. Fundamentally my assumption is that it is right-wing, as Vice implies, as it appears to be a MAGA ideology trying to gain support from Communists, as opposed to a Communist ideology trying to gain support from MAGA. Hinkle is clearly MAGA, but not clearly a communist based on accumulation of reliable sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use WP:OR to decide whether or not Hinkle is a Communist. We can, however, write that Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist if WP:RS describes him as a MAGA Communist. This is ultimately what my argument is about. Others have said that this is exceptional, or that this is undue weight but all that's being said is that he has been described as a MAGA Communist. The change is not trying to say that he is a Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

He's described as a MAGA Communist in the views section and it's referenced that he promotes it in the lede. I'm failing to see your point here. You want to add it the lede or something? Is it necessary to say that someone is a MAGA Communist when they promote MAGA Communism? Based on your previous edits, it does seem like your change was saying he was also a communist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't know people interpreted my point as me saying Hinkle is a Communist. That is not at all what I'm saying. I just want to add information about how Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist. Specifically, the change I want to make is this.

From:

Politically, Hinkle has been variously described as an American conservative, MAGA, right-wing, and far-right influencer.

To:

Politically, Hinkle has been variously described as an American conservative, MAGA, right-wing, far-right, and MAGA Communist influencer. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As I told you repeatedly, and as DFlhb and CommunityNotesContributor just told you, he is "described as a MAGA Communist in the views section and it's referenced that he promotes it in the lede. I'm failing to see your point here. ... Is it necessary to say that someone is a MAGA Communist when they promote MAGA Communism?" Again, he "coined the term. So we don't mention it as something he's been 'described as'. But that's irrelevant because the lead already mentions 'MAGA Communism'."
Davide King (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

You write:

"he is "described as a MAGA Communist in the views section and it's referenced that he promotes it in the lede."

However, in the lede, when the article lists what he has been described as, MAGA Communist is nowhere to be found. The point is that since he has been described as a MAGA Communist, then we should include how he has been described as a MAGA Communist.

TWO

In the Views section, Hinkle is only described as a "MAGA Communist" (with the quotes). This means that it is not a serious description.

THREE

YOU write: "Is it necessary to say that someone is a MAGA Communist when they promote MAGA Communism?""

I am not saying that the article should call Hinkle a MAGA Communist. I am saying that the article should say Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist. This is necessary because it's not simply a self-descriptor.

FOUR

You write:

"Again, he "coined the term. So we don't mention it as something he's been 'described as'."

If Hinkle coined a term, that doesn't automatically make it something others take seriously. When other articles, like these 3, describe him as a MAGA Communist (or even as a communist), there is always a caveat. This caveat does not exist in the In These Times source.

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

FIVE

You write:

"But that's irrelevant because the lead already mentions 'MAGA Communism'."

The lede mentions MAGA Communism, which it does. However, the lede does not mention how Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MAGA Communism, Post-Left, Communist, Far-Left, and Far-Right

@Davide King You reverted my edit on the basis of "it is clear from reliable sources that he seen as right-wing/far-right"

However, reliable sources show contradictory things.

1. This source from Euromaiden Press calls him far-left.
2. This source from Compact calls him communist.
3. This source from Howie Hawkins calls him post-left.
4. This source from In These Times calls him Maga Communist.

Additionally, the Compact source is the only one that gives a detailed example of the ideology of Hinkle itself (rather than simply labeling him as x). It describes how the goals of Hinkle aren't "always clear". Followed up with a few potential explanations of what it could actually be.

1. It suggests that the goal could be to "unite people from the far left and far right under the same anti-elite umbrella."
2. It also suggests that the goal could be to "transcend existing ideologies and the left-right political spectrum altogether."

I am not arguing that there are not sources that describe him as far-right. That is why my change does not remove those sources.

My change only includes more sources, more descriptions, and more details about the complexity, and lack of consensus around Hinkle's beliefs. Hopefully this clarifies things. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop spreading lies like that "Euromaiden Press calls him far-left"; they did not, they referred to his show as an "American far-left 'anti-imperialist' outlet". Additionally, In These Times says: "What do such figures mean by 'working class'? 'Racists,' says one prominent #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, 'hate me because I'm white.' He has 2 million Twitter followers. This October, numerous leftists warned that Hinkle was among the far-right actors opportunistically promoting the Palestinian cause to further their reach—he gained roughly 1.6 million of his followers in the first weeks of the war—and achieve their own, deeply different goals." Compact magazine has been removed by David Gerard as unreliable, and I do not think Against the Current is reliable for the label; in fact, it is only used to say that Hinkle joined the Libertarian Party, the People's Party, and the far-right LaRouche organization in the Rage Against the War Machine demontrstaion, for which is fine to use. Just like Euromaiden Press may be fine for something Hinkle said but not to claim it supports the far-left label for him. It does not. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

You're accusing me of something I did not do.

You write:

Please, stop spreading lies like that "Euromaiden Press calls him far-left"; they did not, they referred to his show as an "American far-left 'anti-imperialist' outlet"

But the source says:

"Jackson Hinkle, the founder of the American far-left “anti-imperialist” outlet The Dive"

Therefore, it is not a lie. "The Dive with Jackson Hinkle" is called far-left by the Euromaiden Press. He is inseparable from his show unless you can show that he wasn't the sole producer of his show.

TWO

You are not giving an explanation for why "MAGA Communist" should not be included. The sentence written currently says:

"Politically, Hinkle has been variously described as an American conservative, MAGA, right-wing, and far-right influencer."

But this source, as you pointed out, describes him as a MAGA Communist. Why not include this?

THREE

Can you link to the explanation as to why Compact is unreliable?

FOUR

The source from Howie Hawkins does not describe him as "far-left", it describes him as "post-left". These are different things. ~~~~ Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• It may not be a lie but it fails verification. We should stick to what sources say, and the source referred to his show as "far-left". But even ignoring all this, @CommunityNotesContributor's point remain, and it is undue to use a single source, which goes against what reliable sources have said, to say that he has been described as far-left.
• I told you. MAGA Communism is one of the labels Hinkle uses to self-describe, it is redundant. You focus on that and ignore the same source saying that most leftists see Hinkle as a far-right, that seems more important than a label Hinkle uses as a self-description.
• I did not say that it is unreliable, just that David Gerard removed as such. @Bobfrombrockley also questioned that source. I think it can be used for the previous wording that was at the MAGA Communism section, I do not think it is as good to use for a label that no other reliable source uses, thus making it undue.
• Do you realize that post-left links to Contemporary anarchism (see also Post-left anarchism), which has clearly nothing to do with Hinkle? Again, this is also a single source for a single label. Have you seen have there is more than one source (also reliable) for the other labels? If there is only a single, maybe questionable or not reliable source for a label, why it is due?

Davide King (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

You write: "It may not be a lie but it fails verification"

How? The reliable sources, refer to him as "far-left" (you dispute this one), "communist" (you've claimed this is unreliable, explain more please), "post-left", and "MAGA Communist".

WP:UNDUE refers to not giving equal weight to fringe views. However, I haven't found anything that suggests that these news sources (outside of Euromaiden Press) are unreliable.

Therefore, the only explanation for why these views are "fringe" is because they are not as common as the ones who refer to him as right wing, but they do exist.

But, according to WP:CONFLICTING we should not dismiss a viewpoint because it's contradictory. You haven't addressed this. Additionally, since this is a BLP, we need to be extra cautious to not have the article be unbalanced according to WP:BLPBALANCE.

TWO

You write: "MAGA Communism is one of the labels Hinkle uses to self-describe"

Yes, but that isn't the point I am making. The point I am making is that because a reliable source calls him a MAGA Communist, then it should be included in the article.

For example, if he calls himself far-right, but RS doesn't, then we should not write that Hinkle is far-right. However, if RS DOES call him far-right, then it can be included. The same is true for MAGA Communism.

I understand that your personal bias is that Hinkle is not a communist, but the article should reflect the reliable sources instead of our personal beliefs.

THREE

You removed the Compact source because it was unreliable. Can you explain why? I have found nothing that suggests it's unreliable and will add it back unless you can give an explanation.

FOUR

These 4 sources are the ones that I can find, but since there are 4 of them, and since this is a BLP, we should be cautious in the approach to whether or not they should be included. Again, I understand you personally believe he's not a Communist, but it doesn't matter. The topic is about whether or not he is called a communist, and he is. Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• None of these four are likely generally reliable sources (they are not listed at WP:RSP but you may go at WP:RSN to have them evalued) but may be used for uncontroversial claims, such as that Hinkle joined the Libertarian Party, the People's Party, and the far-right Larouch movement in a rally.
• On this, @DFlhb said it better than I could below, so I am not going to repeat myself.
• I did not remove it! David Gerard removed it, saying it is a "fringe source, entirely uncleaar this is WP:DUE especially on a BLP".
• Again, he has been called a "communist" by a single source, Compact, which other users have been questioned. This is starting to look like WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Davide King (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If these sources have not been evaluated, then you should not remove them on the basis that they are unreliable. It is not exceptional to say that Hinkle has been referred to as a Communist, if a source refers to him as a Communist. You don't need to repeat yourself, you should respond to the point that I made: I'll make it again:

If the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent "#MAGACommunist", Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

or if the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent self-proclaimed #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

then I could agree with you that it was a self-description, this is what these 3 sources have done:

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

However, the source does not do this. The # is simply apart of the neologism which is why "MAGACommunism" is never mentioned seperate from the "#" in the source

Lastly, you did remove it when I included it into the article just today. Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As @DFlhb said, you are basically ignoring the fact that the "says one prominent '#MAGACommunist'" quote comes from a source that is, to quote DFlhb, "describing him as far-right (i.e. rejecting his self-descriptor), and the source is a PDF document dedicated to covering the far-right. So he is not in the least DESCRIBED as a communist in the sources." I am sorry about the removal of that, it happened because I simply reverted to the version prior to that. I will not re-add that source, as it has been questioned by two other users; I have restored the In These Times source to further support the sentence about how leftists see MAGA Communism. Davide King (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The source describes leftists warning that Hinkle is far-right, and also as a MAGACommunist (no quotes). The Source is not a PDF document, it is an internet-accessible magazine. In this source, he is called a MAGA Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also In These Times clearly does not call him "Maga Communist", as it is clear from context they are using his self-description; it is also redundant to say that he has been described as a MAGA Communist when that is literally his own self-description. Just because there is communist in it, it does not mean Hinkle is a communist. Just like Adolf Hitler was not a socialist because his movement was called National Socialism; he was a far-right, fascist. Davide King (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

You write:

In These Times clearly does not call him "Maga Communist", as it is clear from context they are using his self-description

However, this is what the source says:

What do such figures mean by 'working class'? 'Racists,' says one prominent #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, 'hate me because I'm white.' He has 2 million Twitter followers.

Therefore, the source does refer to him a MAGA Communist. As we've discussed, when self-descriptions are used, they are put in quotations, or clarified to be a self description. Here are just 3 examples:

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

When others were trying to include "MAGA Communist" as a description for Hinkle, there were people arguing that it was not a description of Hinkle because of the fact that there were quotations, and clarifications like "self-proclaimed" and "self-described". However, these clarifications are not in the source from In These Times.

TWO

You also write "Just because there is communist in it, it does not mean Hinkle is a communist."

However, this is irrelevant. I may personally think that Hinkle is not a communist, but the truth is that he is DESCRIBED as a communist in the sources. Instead of making the article about what we personally believe, we should make the article about what the reliable sources say. And there is at least 1 reliable source that calls him a "MAGA Communist".

I predict that other publications will be released that dispute and criticize this claim that he is a communist, but until this happens, our personal bias must be kept out of the article. Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, MAGA Communism is his self-description, it is redundant. Also note the #, to me this makes it obvious that it is saying Hinkle is one of the promoters of that MAGA Communism slogan. I also think the rest of the sentence, which you have ignored, is more interesting. Finally, "MAGA Communist" is not the same thing as "communist", it would be original research to use a source using Hinkle's self-description as MAGA Communist to imply that he is a communist and not just a "MAGA Communist" like the source said. In These Times does not support the claim that Hinkle is a communist, quite the opposite; in regards to the label, it merely says that Hinkle is a proponent of "#MAGA Communism" (duh). Davide King (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

You write: "MAGA Communism is his self-description"

This is not the point. The point is that a RS calls him a MAGA Communist, and therefore we can write in the article that he has been described as a communist. Again, if he calls himself far-right, but RS doesn't, then we should not write that Hinkle is far-right. However, if RS DOES call him far-right, then it can be included. The same is true for MAGA Communism.

TWO

You write: "Also note the #, to me this makes it obvious that it is saying Hinkle is one of the promoters of that MAGA Communism slogan"

This is WP:OR. The source explicitly says "one prominent #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle". My own WP:OR would be that the reason for the # is because it originated as a hashtag. ie. the hashtag is apart of the "MAGACommunism" as a label.

THREE

You write ""MAGA Communist" is not the same thing as "communist", it would be original research to use a source using Hinkle's self-description as MAGA Communist to imply that he is a communist and not just a "MAGA Communist" like the source said."

This is true. And the Compact article is what describes him as a Communist. The In These Times article describes him as a MAGA Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The point is that a RS calls him a MAGA Communist, and therefore we can write in the article that he has been described as a communist." Did you really say that? Do you really think that a source calling him "MAGA Communist" can be used to support "communist"? This is like the Euromaiden Press issue; if a source describes his show as far-left, we cannot use that same source to say he has been described as "far-left". Similarly, if a source mentions "MAGA Communism", we cannot use that same source to imply he has been described as a "communist". This is like so basic, please tell me you did not mean to say that and just got confused because that is literally what WP:OR is for and we cannot do that.
• Again, I redirect you to what DFlhb said. Just understand that you appear to be in the minority here, so do not make such changes to the article without us achieving consensus.
• Yes, indeed. So as I said, we have a single source, which some users have questioned, calling him a "communist", we need more than that.

Davide King (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

If RS calls him a MAGA Communist, we can write that he has been described as a MAGA Communist. This is true.

TWO

I responded to this below. I'll repeat it here. You don't need to repeat yourself, just respond to my comment. You don't need to respond to the both. I'm only posting it here so it's easier for you to see.

If the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent "#MAGACommunist", Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

or if the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent self-proclaimed #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

then I could agree with you that it was a self-description, this is what these 3 sources have done:

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

However, the source does not do this. The # is simply apart of the neologism which is why "MAGACommunism" is never mentioned seperate from the "#" in the source

THREE

We have 4 total sources, but your point is that these 4 sources don't all agree. However, my point is that because there are 4 of them, it reflects how his nuance is more complex. This is also shown in the Compact article. Additionally, the article isn't saying that "Hinkle has been described by multiple sources as "x". The article is just giving a list of things that he has been described as. This means that as long as the source is reliable, it doesn't matter that there is just 1. Readers can also see the weight of it by seeing how many sources are attached to it. Alleycat1995 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I already replied to you above. The botton line is that there appears to be no consensus for the changes you are seeking. I suggest you to take this at WP:RSN to ask: "Is source A reliable for us to say "Hinkle has been described as X"? I say make it specific, as that is what you want the source for, and because a source may be reliable for something (for example, something Hinkle said or took part to) but not reliable for something else (e.g. that he is a communist). Davide King (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no consensus for adding how Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist if the RS show him being described as one? Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Because there are other users, including me, who do not see your proposed edits as an improvement. Saying that someone, who litteraly coined the term "MAGA Communism", has been described as "MAGA Communist" (there are users, such as DFlhb, who question that "the RS show him being described as one") is reduandant.
Davide King (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the same point I made above, so feel free to respond to only 1 comment:

If Hinkle coined a term, that doesn't automatically make it something others take seriously. When other articles, like these 3, describe him as a MAGA Communist (or even as a communist), there is always a caveat. This caveat does not exist in the In These Times source.

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

The importance of mentioning how Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist is because it's not just Hinkle that self describes himself to be a MAGA Communist. There is more weight to something if others describe you as something then if only you describe yourself as something. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But that same source you continue to point to does not take it seriously, and discusses Hinkle within the context of the far right. "MAGA Communism" is in quote marks in "Views" because we are quoting how Hinkle describes himself. This is the context: "Hinkle describes himself as an "American Conservative Marxist–Leninist", a "Marxist–Leninist anti-imperialist American patriot", and a "MAGA Communist". Davide King (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

ONE

The source does take it seriously. Again, here is what the source says:

"What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”"

If the source did not take it seriously, they would have used the caveat of "self-proclaimed", "self-described" or simply put quotes around it. But they didn't. Therefore to say they didn't take it seriously is OR.

TWO

The same source does discuss Hinkle within the context of the far right, which makes sense considering he has been described as far-right. What's the problem here?

THREE

You write: ""MAGA Communism" is in quote marks in "Views" because we are quoting how hinkle describes himself."

This is correct. This is part of why it is not redundant to say that "Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist". Because Hinkle has previously only described himself as a MAGA Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was without the #, it would have been clearer. As things stand, and as stated by DFlhb, it does look that "'#MAGACommunist' is indeed just repeating his self-description", with the # acting as the "self-proclaimed" caveat. But even ignoring this and if we consider this source as supporting the claim that he has been described as "MAGA Communist", it is redundant and I am not convinced by your arguments of how this would be an improvement. It would be like saying that Murray Rothbard, the founder of anarcho-capitalism, has been described as an anarcho-capitalist (duh). Instead, in such case, it would make more sense to say something like this: "Rothbard has also been described as far-right because of his association with far-right groups and his proposal of alliance with radical-right populism through paleolibertarianism." Thus, in the case of Hinkle, it makes more sense to describe that has been described as far-right, right-wing, conservative, and MAGA, and using "MAGA Communist" as his self-description. Davide King (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The # was used because MAGA Communist was described by this source to be a "hashtag movement". However, I think the compromise would be to say Hinkle has been described as a #MAGACommunist.

The # cannot be interpreted as meaning self-proclaimed without violating WP:OR.

I would agree with you, (that it is redundant to say Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist,) only if Hinkle is a Maga Communist. But there is no consensus for that. There is a consensus that Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist and thus saying how Rothbard has been described as one is redundant.

Hinkle not only uses MAGA Communist to describe himself, but has also been described as one by In These Times. I am not saying we should delete the details about how he describes himself as a MAGA Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"unite people" under an "anti-elite umbrella" and "transcend existing ideologies" is how he presents himself. I doubt you'll find mainstream reliable (i.e. "responsible") sources that accept this framing, as it reframes extremism as something moderate and unifying.

Davide is right that "#MAGACommunist" is indeed just repeating his self-description (and to me, the hashtag symbol seems to indicate derision). They're describing him as far-right (i.e. rejecting his self-descriptor), and the source is a PDF document dedicated to covering the far-right. So he is not in the least DESCRIBED as a communist in the sources. VICE, which you also link here, analyses his "communism" as alt-right spin. DFlhb (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Compact refers to him as potentially trying to unite people under an anti-elite umbrella.

If the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent "#MAGACommunist", Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

or if the source said:

What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent self-proclaimed #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”

then I could agree with you that it was a self-description, this is what these 3 sources have done:

1. "Haz is one of a number of self-proclaimed communists who are pushing the notion that..."
2. "The 'maga communist' has repeatedly been banned from social media"
3. "self-described "MAGA Communist” Jackson Hinckle said he supports Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine."

However, the source does not do this. The # is simply apart of the neologism which is why "MAGACommunism" is never mentioned seperate from the "#" in the source Alleycat1995 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's self-description, not something he's been described as. He coined the term. So we don't mention it as something he's been "described as". But that's irrelevant because the lead already mentions "MAGA Communism". So what are the walls of text for? And please don't repeatedly copy-paste the same comments, it's strange. DFlhb (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a self description, hence why there is no clarifying language of "self described" or quotes around "magacommunism". To say it's a self description is OR. If the source wanted to say it was a self-description, they would have.

The lede mentioning "MAGA Communism" is not the same thing as saying Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist. The difference is that Hinkle being a "proponent of MAGA Communism" is not the same thing as "Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist"? Why? Because one is Hinkle describing himself as a MAGA Communist, and the other is an outside source, In These Times, describing him as a MAGA Communist.

Lastly, there are no walls of text, I am concisely responding to each of your points. I am copy/pasting stuff for your convenience, and the convenience of others. People often forget what the conversation is about over time. If you don't want me to, I won't. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to say, I think you missed my original point (as well as those of others). In my opinion it's not that his description of post-left, communist and far-left should be completely excluded, but that it would be WP:UNDUE to put them in a list alongside multiple reliable sources that have claimed otherwise. Hence I changed his description in views to include "prominent" and "primarily" for descriptors, which is an accurate way to describe him. You're point previously; Euromaiden Press is one of 4 that broadly reference him as being far-left, is purely layering such information. Ie post-left and communist might well be far-left, but Hinkle being these things wouldn't necessarily mean he is far left, unless this is what multiple sources explicitly said (which they haven't) . As for MAGA Communism, I think others already covered the reality of this. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is not claiming that he is far-right, the article is claiming that he has been described as far-right. This is an important distinction because if he's merely being described as far-right, it means that he may or may not be. This is also true for if he's being described as post-left, a maga communist, etc. If a WP:RS says that he has been described as a MAGA Communist, which he has, then we can include that in the article. That doesn't mean that he is a "MAGA Communist", it only means what it says. That he has been described as one. You're missing the point by thinking I am arguing that Hinkle is a communist. That is not my argument. My argument is that WP:RS has described him as a MAGA Communist, among other things (listed again below for convenience) and that our article should reflect that he has been described as these things. I am not arguing that the article should say "Hinkle is a communist" or anything like this.

1. This source from Euromaiden Press calls him far-left.
2. This source from Compact calls him communist.
3. This source from Howie Hawkins calls him post-left.
4. This source from In These Times calls him Maga Communist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is not going nowhere and we will just have to agree to disagree. The thing is that, as things stand and with this sourcing, in addition to the lack of consensus among the other users, these three labels are undue (if sources of which there is no doubt are generally reliable use these labels, then we can discuss it). As for the last label, it is redundant and we are not required to list every single label that has been attributed to Hinkle, especially if it comes from a source that may or may not be generally reliable. "Far-right", "right-wing", "conservative", and "MAGA" seem to be the more due ones. We need stronger sourcing for the others or at least a consensus from other users that they are due like the other four. Davide King (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You have repeated yourself and not responded to my points. The source describes him as MAGA Communist, and you haven't given a reason that it shouldn't be included in the article. The label is undue only if the view is insignificant. There has not yet been a reason for why In These Times is insignificant. It would actually be undue to not include this source, as it would be excluding any description of Hinkle that isn't on the right. Additionally, the weight can easily be seen by the amount of sources attributed to it. So although there is only 1 source that currently describes Hinkle as a MAGA Communist, there would be no undue weight as the 1 source is visible, and the multiple other sources that describe him as right-wing add more weight to it. Instead of dismissing WP:CONFLICTING viewpoints, we should include the nuance, especially since this is a BLP. None of these points have been addressed. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that In These Times is insignificant, I am just saying it is much better used within the context of what the article is (e.g. the far-right and more specifically how lefetists see Hinkle as far right). Do you really think reading that article that the most important thing is the magazine describing Hinkle as "#MAGACommunist"? It is indeed undue when most of reliable sources see Hinkle on the right-wing side of the political spectrum. Again, I am not saying that these sources cannot be used in the article, I just think that they are useful for different things, since neither of them are reliable for a political label. Euromaiden Press is good in regards to Hinkle's disinformation, while In These Times is good for a left-wing viewpoint of Hinkle. The Against the Current article by Hawkins is fine to report uncontroversial things like Hinkle's participation to a rally and its participants, while Compact may be fine for a description of MAGA Communism. For example, for the "far-right" label we have The Guardian and Bellingat, both of which have been considered generally reliable. For "right-wing", we have The Times, which is also generally reliable. None of these four sources you keep linking are present at WP:RSP but that does not mean they are considered generally reliable. As you said, we should be cautious, so we cannot add these sources if there is not been a discussion at WP:RSN on whether they should be considered generally reliable or not. We should only rely on sources that have been considered generally reliable when it comes to how Hinkle has been described. Davide King (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand my argument. My argument is not that the most important thing about the article is that Hinkle was described as a MAGA Communist. I don't think that is true for any of the sources currently in the article. The point isn't that the most important part of the source is how Jackson was described as a MAGA Communist, the point is that Hinkle was described as a MAGA Communist. The source makes it seem like MAGA Communism is on the right-side of the political spectrum, so your point about "It is indeed undue when most of reliable sources see Hinkle on the right-wing side of the political spectrum." is null. It's still true that Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist and therefore there's no problem with including it in the article. The other sources will be discusses, but I now think it'll be most productive to explain them 1 at a time rather than diving into all of them at once. Alleycat1995 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is people just disagree with you that the source "describes him as" MAGA Communist, yet you keep insisting that. DFlhb (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The source directly says Hinkle is a "prominent MAGA Communist". What is there to disagree with? Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Read it again. They bring up the hashtag movement #MAGACommunism, which they describe as full-fledged fascists, and they describe Hinkle as one of several among the far-right actors opportunistically promoting... That is how the source describes the movement and Hinkle in its own words. We can use that source for "far-right". DFlhb (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This source does allude to Hinkle being far-right, although the full quote you described is "numerous leftists warned that Hinkle was among the far-right actors". But there is a difference between "MAGA Communism" and "far-right" which is shown when the source decided to describe him as a MAGA Communist, and not as far-right.

The source does not only "bring up the hashtag movement #MAGACommunism", it directly describes him as a MAGA Communist. Again, if the source describes him as a MAGA Communist (which it does: "What do such figures mean by “working class”? “Racists,” says one prominent #MAGACommunist, Jackson Hinkle, “hate me because I’m white.”"), then the article can say that "Hinkle has been described as a MAGA Communist". Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT and WP:1AM. DFlhb (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I directly responded to your point. I am not ignoring you.

You said that the source only brings up the hashtag movement MAGACommunism, but the source also directly calls him a MAGA Communist.

You keep giving new reasons for why Hinkle being directly described as a MAGA Communist should not be included, and then accuse me of not listening to you when I respond to each of them.

Do you refuse to continue conversation? Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I've always given the same reason: you're misreading the source, which does not call him a "MAGA Communist" (in fact, the source refutes the existence of such a thing). Yes, this is unproductive. DFlhb (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The source does not refute the existence of such a thing, it directly describes Hinkle as a "prominent #MAGACommunist". You've tried to explain how I've misread the source by saying that it's a "self-description", yet I've already explained how that's WP:OR (still waiting on your response). Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Also WP:BLUDGEONING CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

People have tried to give many reasons why this should not be included, I have provided thorough explanations in hopes that it won't be misunderstood. However, I have tried to bold the most important comments. Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2