Talk:Vox Day/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gamergate?

Why no discussion of his particpation in the #gamergate controversy? He is a frequent poster on twitter with that hashtag and regularly attacks #gamergate opponents.208.163.133.252 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE. Where has this been discussed by others first? It's not our job to pick and choose out of the many things VD says what's worth including here. Choor monster (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned extensively in articles about the awards. We need the article expanded in a major way.DreamGuy (talk)

Please supply links. I recall reading lots of stuff about Puppygate, but I have no memory of any such comments. This may be because my memory sucks, or it may be because I read the wrong stuff, or it may be because I only cared about Puppygate, or it may be because it was barely mentioned in the sources. We don't "need" the article to be expanded, we "need" sources. And please note WP:UNDUE. If it's just something mentioned in passing, it will be hard to justify its inclusion. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Vox Popoli"

I understand "Vox Popoli" is not a misspelling of "vox populi", but the same phrase in a particular Italian dialect, but I can't recall or find details. Does anyone know and have a cite? - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Philosopher in the lede

In what sense is Vox Day a philosopher? The article only lists some half-baked (and eminently controversial) positions on race. It does not appear that he has been published in any academic journals or contributed anything to the philosophical discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.78.130 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur; removed. The "philosophical views" section was a political views section, so I've also renamed that accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I think it could be included due to his publication of The Irrational Atheist, which is a philosophical work. Kelly ^hi! 11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe his work on Social Justice Warriors was the #1 seller in political philosophy for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C902:479A:ED91:3D5B:56A6:2252 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the section immediately below this one, you can get #1 in an Amazon section with literally three sales. It's not evidence of any sort of notability - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing the whole Scalzi book parody thing.

Yo. So I wanted to remove the bit about the Day book parody and the retaliotary parody calling Scalzi a rapist but was reverteed. I think it should be removed because we've only got one source on the whole thing and it's Breitbart. Also if what Liz added is right, then Amazon removed the title for being too insulting so we should really have stronger sourcing if we're going to include it. Brustopher (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur, it's pretty trivial. Also, #1 in an Amazon subsection can be done with literally three copies and doesn't indicate noteworthiness at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Noteworthiness isn't required of details in an article, only sources. Pkeets (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but then it's an issue of undue weight. DS (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:WEIGHT as Dragonfly notes - but this is a BLP of a controversial person, so actually yes, every detail is required to be of sufficient note to put in the bio - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Musical Career

Theodore Beale is not responsible for nor credited for It Has Begun and Unlearn. He was no longer a part of Psychosonik after the material released for/from the first album. It can be clearly seen on the 12" for It Has Begun that only Daniel Lenz was credited for this composition: https://www.discogs.com/Psykosonik-Alien-Factory-It-Has-Begun-Higher/release/1575114

And for Unlearn, it was "written and produced by Daniel Lenz and Paul Sebastien" https://img.discogs.com/bU40QFsvqmX7OKq2Q1myo4XGFxU=/fit-in/599x467/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-106761-1291574482.jpeg.jpg Inkrat773 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed some of this concern. It might be best off removing the 'musical career' section entirely. I don't believe it can be sourced to anything other than Beale talking about himself. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Day vs Beale

I noticed that the article uses both Day and Beale to refer to its subject, and I was thinking it should all be normalized and matched, probably to Day, as I couldn't figure out any pattern to the usage. Does anyone have other thoughts on that? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The article was recently moved from "Theodore Beale" to "Vox Day", so that's probably left over from the old name. Yeah, it needs cleanup to "Day" I think. Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So, is Vox Day his legal name now? It thought it was just a pen name, which means the article should say Theodore Beale? Pkeets (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The title of the article is pretty clear, per WP:PSEUDONYM. For the article, using "Day" without the "Vox" seems a bit odd, since the name is a phrase, not a first/last pseudonym. Does anyone call him "Mr. Day"? Is he Vox to his friends? Looking through sources, those that refer to him by name more than once either use "Vox Day" in full every mention, (Salon, Slate), or use Beale (Guardian, WSJ). I think we should pick one and use that, rather than treating Day as a surname, which seems sillier and sillier the more I think about it. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the first line to not sound as if his legal name has changed to Vox Day. --jae (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

His name is Theodore Beale. That should be the name of the article, not this "Vox Day" nonsense, which is just a joke (and by that I mean it's his joke, a joke he constructed on purpose, not "this guy's pseudonym is absurd" -- it is, literally, a joke). "Vox Day" should redirect to "Theodore Beale", not the other way around. -- 67.76.163.46 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

I reverted this edit by Neptune's Trident on the grounds that primary sources (i.e. Day talking about it in his blog) isn't enough for a controversial BLP, I'd think we'd need third-party RSes noting him as notable for each of these things. But I thought I should ask here in case I'm being overly stringent - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Day's support of Chinese SF

DragonflySixtyseven: Please see the discussion on this addition here: User talk:David Gerard and respond on the article's talk page so I don't have to go through this again. I don't think you can call Chaos Horizon just a random blog. Kempner is quite the math geek and does quite good analyses. If you can't tolerate his blog as a reference, then I think you should remove the reference to John Scalzi's blog as well. Once you accept one "random guy's" blog into an article, then you've opened the door to others. If I remove Chaos Horizon, then Day's support for The Three Body Problem remains, and the statistics are attached for anyone to do their own analysis. Pkeets (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you're objecting to Chaos Horizon as a source, I've removed it and left the statement about the withdrawal making space for The Three Body Problem, which you can't dispute because it's published on the Hugo website, and the statement about Day's support of the novel, which you also can't dispute, as it's published on his website early in 2015. I'm also attaching the Hugo voting statistics so readers of the article can see the margin of victory. Accord to analyses of these stats, the Rabid Puppies run around 500 and the Sad Puppies run around 500. If they vote together, that's about 1000 votes. The margin of victory for Liu's novel was about 200 votes. Day recommended it; do the math yourself. Since you object to blogs from random guys, I'm also removing Scalzi's blog as a source. Pkeets (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns about the neutrality of the POV in this article. It's not Wikipedia's job to establish that Day is a bigot, only to present the facts. Trying to erase Day's support of Chinese minority writers is misleading. Pkeets (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For a controversial BLP we need to keep away from the blogs in general. This can lead to anodyne BLPs, that are arguably incorrect in potentially important detail - but sometimes Wikipedia's sourcing rules just don't let us cover details that happened in the blogosphere but having no note outside it. This is less than ideal in SF, where the discourse basically happens in blogs, but WP:BLP explicitly references WP:SOURCES for excellent reason.

For the specific claim - that it was Vox wot won it - none of your citations to RSes back up this claim, so it's WP:SYNTH - even if you think you have blogs to back it, you absolutely need RSes here - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

People keep trying to put this back in, by wording that seems to imply it. But we need an RS that backs up the claim, not original research - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, I believe. ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find it worded this way in the source you've cited. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"the margin of victory between The Three-Body Problem and the second-place novel, Katherine Addison's The Goblin Emperor, was smaller than the number of voters who had voted in accordance with Vox Day's recommendations, which included putting The Three-Body Problem in first place, ahead of any of his actual nominees. In other words, Vox Day could fairly be argued as being responsible for the victory." - from page 178 of the print edition. What about this seems inconsistent with what I added? ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

'could be argued' does not mean 'is a fact'. Additionally, I believe you're missing the underlying irony of the situation as described by the author. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The text I added to the article was "in part based on the Rabid Puppies voters, who provided the decisive votes that put it ahead of Katherine Addison's The Goblin Emperor," which does not say that Vox Day was responsible for the victory, but rather that his votes were decisive, which seems to me a fair restatement of the source's account of the margin of victory. So I'm still puzzled by your objection here. ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

voxday.blogspot.com is obviously a primary source, there's no reason to use it in the article. Inicholson (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an important source to show that he published his support for the works in question. Pkeets (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly useful as a relevant self-statement unambiguously from the subject, per WP:SELFPUB. However, we would still need to establish that the fact itself is notable, per WP:BLP on controversial BLPs - pretty much every individual claim needs its notability as a claim established by RSes - see WP:BLPREMOVE. That is, that Vox Day said something does not necessarily mean it should be in the article Vox Day - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've referenced an Amazing Stories article that listed the Puppy recommendations for 2016, including Hao's "Folding Beijing". This is a secondary source, so support for the story is no longer reliant on Day as a source. File 770 reported his support for The Three Body Problem in 2015. We're no longer talking about just primary sources here. Both these magazines should be reliable sources. Pkeets (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

However, we would still need to establish that the fact itself is notable, per WP:BLP on controversial BLPs - pretty much every individual claim needs its notability as a claim established by RSes - see WP:BLPREMOVE. - that's quite clearly not every remotely close to what the policy says. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources are fine for details about the subject. 'Vox day supports chinese authors' is fine to be sourced to Vox Day himself. Whats more of a problem is the final unsourced sentence in the 2016 awards bit which states his support contributed to the winning. Which obviously is more problematic as the actual voting evidence suggests that Vox Days support either has no effect, or a negative one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at his recommendations again and compare to what 1) was nominated and 2) what won. You might also want to check the results of last week's Dragon Awards. It's also helpful to review the Chaos Horizon analysis of the voting stats. It's clear that Day has a bloc of voters that is large enough to affect award results. Day's support for The Three Body Problem and "Folding Beijing" is reported in secondary sources (as well as posted on his site). It's clear that he supported Chinese authors for two years in a row and these works went on to win. As I said above, erasing these results means the article has a biased POV. It's Wikipedia's role to report the facts, not establish Day's reputation. Pkeets (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, hence the OR tags I just added. We need this specific assertion cited to RSes - Vox Day claiming it is not enough - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What's referenced isn't a claim after the fact. He posted his recommendations before the vote. Pkeets (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah they were not there when I looked :D I have tried to find some RS who comment on that particular claim but cant find any. There is stuff (unreliable) that mentions his support of the author, but nothing that comes close to saying his support contributed to the win. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Chaos Horizon did the analysis. Most references to how Day contributed to the win will point back there. Pkeets (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The current statement in the article doesn't say his support contributed, only that he supported The Three Body Problem and it won.. Since there was objection to Chaos Horizon as a source, I took the "instrumental" part out, and you're left with a general statement: He supported it and it won. File 770 (referenced) is a Hugo Award Winning Magazine that features an article on Day's support of The Three Body Problem. Amazing Stories is also a magazine and should be a RS. Pkeets (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The current, non-optimal phrasing — "With Day's support, 3BP won" — still implies that without his support, it would have lost. If you wish to state that this is the case, you'll need a much better source than Chaos Horizon. And I'm somewhat disconcerted that you've decided to equate John Scalzi's re-publication of an Edmund Schubert statement (provided to support what Edmund Schubert said about Edmund Schubert's decision) with the Chaos Horizon guy's assumptions based on statistical analysis. DS (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Scalzi is a SF author and not a RS. He is on equal footing with Chaos Horizon in this case. There have already been statement above that blogs are not appropriate as sources for the articles unless they are used to verify what the author said.Pkeets (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I actually said. Scalzi re-published a statement which was written by, and credited to, Edmund Schubert; this statement is cited to support what Edmund Schubert said about Edmund Schubert's own motivations. As such, it is a Reliable Source for a statement pertaining to Edmund Schubert's motivations insofar as they were Vox Day-centric. DS (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have done the math myself (it's not complicated) and given the voting patterns it is pretty obvious that the voters who voted for the other Day-endorsed selections, highly likely swung the vote in the Novelette category. (It's really trivial to work out since the anti-puppy voters consistantly make 'no award' come higher than Day's choice) The problem is that this is original research for wikipedia's purposes, and for that sort of claim about Day's influence on the winner, in a BLP, we need a much better source than Chaos Horizon. I also agree that it is a problem that this sort of stuff is likely only going to be detailed in subject-matter specialist sites like Chaos Horizon. However that is a function of some areas and wikipedias requirements for reliable sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here's a point. What if, instead of "With Day's support", the article said "Despite Day's support"? That's equally true. (Also, there's no such thing as an 'anti-Puppy voter'. There's Puppies, and there's everyone else. I ranked Puppy nominations below No Award not because they were Puppy, but because they were abysmal.) DS (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're admitting to bias about the article? Wikipedia articles should be written with neutral POV and take both sides of an issue into account. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so needs to present facts, such as Day's support of Chinese finalists in the awards. The articles should not present a biased POV.Pkeets (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as an anti-puppy voter" Ha! Yes, yes there is. The consistant (successful) voting of no award above Vox Day/Castelia is an anti-vote. Its only possible because the voters as a group are deliberately and systematically making sure no award ranks higher. It's a concious effort. If they were not 'anti-puppy' (Well, anti-vox and anti-castalia) they would just vote for their fave title. The winner would still be the same, but the lack of preference gaming would mean Vox's slate would place higher - with no award likely coming bottom. You personally might have voted that way, but the Hugo awards voting figures since Vox started his slates are only explained by a concerted (and in my opinion well justified) active rejection. Although I agree 'despite day's support' is also another (much less likely, but still possible) interpretation. But that would need a reliable source as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that in the year when he sprinkled his slate with 'human shield' non-Puppy-supporters, many of those ranked above No Award. This is, however, drifting away from the topic. DS (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we need to stay on topic. The discussion above does demonstrate that bias is active in these comments. Again, the article needs adjustment of the POV toward neutrality and I would appreciate an unbiased approach to the discussion. There are two SF magazine sources now referencing the statements that Day supported "Folding Beijing" and The Three Body Problem. Looking at the primary sources, these magazine reports are more accurate and reliable than the recent Guardian and Slate articles, for example, which reported that Day did not support these works. In addition, the voting stats and Day's recommendations made on his blog are attached to the statements. See WP:Notability (people) for guidelines on using primary sources in bio articles. Let's take it a step at a time. Have these sufficiently established Day's support for Chinese SF for the last two years? Pkeets (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with Day supporting chinese SF (although I would hesitate to state it that way) only that there is a problem with stating that support is what has caused the wins (even though I personally believe that to be more than likely true based on the voting). Primary sources (and sometimes less reliable sources like specialist websites) can be used for *basic* uncontentious statements on BLP's. The statement that Vox Day's support was a contributor to a winning award is neither basic (it requires analysis to come to that conclusion) nor contentious (for obvious reasons) and requires a reliable source for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. I also object to your statement that disliking Day's writing and his taste in literature is equal to bias on my part, and formally request that you retract it. DS (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no retraction. Your statements have revealed that you have a personal opinion on the subject and his works which will most likely bias your discussion on the article. If we can't have a completely neutral POV, then the information reported needs to be balanced between positive and negative. The article also needs to present facts accurately. Pkeets (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please? DS (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh? Pkeets (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You have said that my statements indicate that my discussion will be biased re: this subject. I ask for you to show, with diffs, the statements to which you refer. DS (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"balanced between positive and negative" Actually, that isn't at all how we do things at Wikipedia. What we do is look to the WP:RSes. Particularly on a controversial BLP. That means if you think the article isn't positive enough, that means you need to find the RSes - not start doing your own synthesis in a quest for what subjectively feels like balance to you - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Balance is something that's used in criticisms, such as from reviewers. It's a fairly common method of presenting opinions in Wikipedia articles. In order to have RS that report positively on Day's activities, you'll need to admit conservative commentary. Someone above has already objected to Brietbart as unreliable, for example. Breitbart is well-known, and would seem to be a good representation of conservative opinions. Pkeets (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You're still thinking "how can I make it feel nice" rather than "what do the RSes say". If you're going to consciously dredge around fringe advocacy sources to find something that says what you want, you're approaching this entirely backward. Start with the actually RSes (mainstream media, reliable specialist media) and work out from there - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, "Your statements have revealed that you have a personal opinion on the subject and his works" - we literally have a cite in this article to the Wall Street Journal that having a negative opinion of Vox Day is the default position; asserting that editors should not hold this opinion would risk false balance. (And in any case, editor's opinion is not a disqualifier from editing, even on a controversial BLP; that takes a track record of bad behaviour.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I would think that WP:ABOUTSELF would apply in regards to Day's support or non-support of these works. Kelly ^hi! 16:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What in particular in the article? Day published his recommendations in his blog, which is the primary source but in the article, this is now also documented through secondary sources, i.e. SF magazines. I think it's a good idea to include both, as it allows the reader to independently verify the information. The primary sources show that respected publications like Slate and the Guardian in this case are clearly unreliable. Pkeets (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of appalled looking at some of these articles from sources that are usually considered reliable. It looks like they didn't even talk to Day when writing these articles about him. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Or, do any research about the subject. They seem to have worked off assumptions. That means identifying bias and reliability in the sources will be important in establishing a neutral POV info in the article. Pkeets (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing check: needs serious work

It's not great. There's far too many citations to primary sources, blog sources and cites that indicate something happened but not why that thing happening is in any way notable.

The letter of WP:BLP on the subject - and let me note, this is strict Wikipedia policy, particularly for controversial figures such as Vox Day - is:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

So it's not enough that Day said something, or that he debated someone, and that we can cite that this is the case - the fact itself has to be notable, i.e. with WP:RS evidence provided right there in the article.

Basically, if this article had a strict cull per WP:BLP, it would be about half the length. I won't do so immediately, but the sources seriously need urgent repair, because this article is presently a BLP hazard - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed Scalzi's blog as a reference per your recommendations. As there was already another reference there, it didn't make any difference in the sourcing that I could see. I'll have a look at some of the others later. With a little bit of searching, I found SF magazines that did a better job of reporting on Day's recommendations on the Hugos than Slate and The Guardian did, for example. They clearly didn't do any research for their articles and went on assumptions, leading to erroneous reports.

I don't know that you can require that all events reported in a Wikipedia article have to be notable. For example, lots of biographies report spouses and children, for example, and info on where the person went to school, how they got started on their career. These facts aren't notable, only provide background on a subject. If you strip these details out of bios in Wikipedia and only leave what's established as notable by consensus, then you'll end up with a lot of stubs. For info on using primary sources in biographies, see WP:Notability (people) Pkeets (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not talking on that level - we're talking on the level of stuff that's controversial interaction in the world. The fact Day said something is not questioned - however, its mention absolutely needs justification. He debated Louise Mensch, this is sourced to Mensch's publication - was there really no RS that noted this in the wider world? He's consistently ranked below "no award" - was there really no RS that noted that? Is there really no RS that noted the opinions in Correia's paragraph? etc., etc. This is not a difficult concept - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it later. It does sound like there are a lot of primary sources used. Pkeets (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We'll need to work on this, but it's getting better already :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I found secondary sources for some of the info without too much trouble. What's left may be harder. As far as I know, ISFDB is completely reliable for SF publications. However, as I understand it, they are peculiar about including non-SF publications. This means their listings won't be complete for non-SF works. Pkeets (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There's actually-reliable and then there's Reliable Source, where the second is best treated as jargon and not English. Same problem with music, e.g. Discogs is completely reliable to me as a music fan but is functionally a wiki so isn't an acceptable source for WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I see Reliable Source does mention the issue of balancing opinion sources when neutral POV is hard to achieve. Pkeets (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, though that doesn't mean "this feels biased to me, I'll find substandard sources that match the POV I feel it needs" - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly, please review WP:SYNTH and provide a reliable source for your statement that all Day's nominations scored below No Award on the Hugo ballot. Pkeets (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur, the fact is obvious at a glance, but to be mentioned in particular in a controversial BLP the fact itself really should have been noted in an RS somewhere (I'd be quite surprised if it hadn't) - someone here must have read large swathes of the *Puppies coverage - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this can be validly cited to primary sources even in the case of a BLP, no? That is, to the published Hugo results for 2014-16, which give ranked finishes for every category: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2014-hugo-awards/ http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2015-hugo-awards/ http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2016-hugo-awards/ ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about synthesis and original research. Pkeets (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm still not clear on how this claim is not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." ConsumptiveOcelot (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

David, re your recent edit: SuperversiveSF is a SF magazine/publisher and not a blog. The articles posted are accepted by the editor. Niemeier is also a noted writer; he was a 2016 Campbell Award finalist and just won a Dragon Award for his novel Souldancer. Since Sandifer's book was rejected because "Not found in source cited", I've referenced his excerpt from the publisher's site instead. The option remains to accept the book as a valid source. Pkeets (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's good then good :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that you've labeled SuperversiveSF a blog and an "unreliable" source in your edit. Pkeets (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It appeared indistinguishable from one. If it's not, then fine - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh ... it turns out to be affiliated with Castalia House, e.g. (not this post) Castalia post, Superversive post (and the Castalia came first), so are we actually sure this particular reference is third-party? - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

yeah, didn't click for a moment that the SuperversiveSF piece is written by Brian Niemeier, who just had a Castalia book win a Dragon Award; this strikes me as not entirely third-party - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the winning book was self-published. However, Day has announced that Castalia will pick it up. As far as I know SuperversiveSF is not affiliated with Castalia House. However, you can see that they may tend to Puppyism.Pkeets (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering, would that make John Scalzi an unreliable source in regards to Tor? :) Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Only for those who approach difficult sourcing issues in an excessively simplistic manner. In this case, the piece is literally a Puppies advocacy piece. But if you have a concern similar in ambition (Day is quoted in this article as to just what his ambition is, viz. "I wanted to leave a big smoking hole where the Hugo Awards were. All this has ever been is a giant Fuck You—one massive gesture of contempt.") that Tor has been pushing, and Scalzi were to write something advocating that ... then I'd still seriously doubt it, because Tor is a huge concern and Castalia is a one-man operation. Did you have a particular example you were thinking of? Talking about hypotheticals tends to go in circles; if you have a particular example you're thinking of in regards to Vox Day, please do put it forward - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you've suggested above that SuperversiveSF and Castalia House are affiliated, I checked to see who the editor of SuperversiveSF is. It's Jason Rennie, who also edits Sci Phi Journal and operates a podcast called Sci Phi Show. Are you confusing use of the term "superversive" for the magazine, by any chance? According to the urban dictionary, "superversive" is the opposite of "subversive", and it's commonly used to mean "inspirational." I admit it does look like Rennie may be a Puppy by philosophy. Pkeets (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I first noted the Castalia reprint, but mostly I'm now thinking "this is a Castalia author pushing the Puppy programme, so may not be a great source of huge independence". That's "may", as I might be just over fussing, as at a certain level all sources in a field might be conflicted and perfection isn't actually required, and we're into the awful grey area of source discussion. I think Sandifer is a more convincing source for this particular point, because he openly despises Vox Day and yet here is crediting him with this. I guess really I'd like more sources. I might note, I just today published a negative review of a Castalia book on Phil's site, so I hold the WSJ-certified typical opinion of Vox Day, but that I find doubles my caution and I'm second guessing myself - David Gerard (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read any of Castalia's books, so don't have an opinion on their quality. It's hard to find third-party sources on Day's recommendations of women and Chinese SF because of their apparent erasure, but just a cursory look at his site reveals the list of names. As I've already mentioned, this leads to a biased Wikipedia article. I do think the ideological battle has become so acute that it's hard to find sources that are unbiased. Chaos Horizon does seem to be fairly bias-free, by the way. I see that Kempner declined a Hugo nomination for the purpose of remaining neutral in the squabble. I'm not objecting to Sandifer. It looks like a great source, but it shouldn't be represented as the only one that pointed out the voting stats. Pkeets (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Infogalactic

This is info about the launch of a website and I have given you 3 sources already:

1. Vox Day's blog describing the project (Infogalactic) he was launching
2. A Breitbart article on the launch of Infogalactic
3. A press release from the Infogalactic website itself, stating that Vox Day was responsible for the project

But you Grayfell keep insisting these are not 'reliable'. How is a press release from the very website not a reliable source as to Vox Day being involved in the launch of that very website? What else do you want? A New York Times article? 177.142.162.134 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a New York Times article would be a reliable source. Neither Vox Day's blog nor Breitbart nor the press release are subject to meaningful editorial oversight; none of them have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Of those three, Breitbart probably is the best (or the least bad, however you want to put it) because it's at least independent and has some semblance of an editorial staff. If Breitbart is the best source, though, it is probably be too early to write about that aspect of Vox Day's career on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Huon Why would you need editorial oversight to confirm what the website itself states about its own launch? When you go to a company's website and look at its "about" page, would you not trust it to talk about the company's launch? Would you wait until (if ever) something comes out in the media before citing in Wikipedia what the company says about its own launch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.142.162.134 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, we should wait for that. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Saying that Infogalactic plans "to solve the structural problems of a community-edited online encyclopedia through objectivity, proven game design principles, and a sophisticated series of algorithms" is promotional, and does nothing to explain or establish Beale's role in the website. This is just one of several projects he's involved with in some way, and it will be interesting to see how this develops, but I don't think it warrants being mentioned yet. Maybe, but definitely not with its own PR-like subsection. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, we need coverage in reliable sources to show that it's a significant aspect of the subject. I too could write about my own website's launch on my own website - who cares? Secondly, we shouldn't just reproduce what the website says about itself, but what independent sources have reported about it. So I agree with Grayfell; we should wait for media coverage. Huon (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there any RSes on Infogalactic? A glance at Google News shows only the Breitbart article. It is entirely unclear this even deserves mention, let alone a section and a subsection. (The article text is a recreation of a promotional article twice speedied for lack of evidence of notability.) This is just advertising - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to find any, aside from the Breitbart article, the reliability of which is open to question, but which should be sufficient to assert the basic fact that such a thing as Infogalactic exists and is connected to Vox Day. This is why I did not think it should have a stand alone article, and merged it here. When I merged it I thought it might be a little much to cut-paste wholesale, especially given the abysmal quality of the other sources, and expected it to be whittled down to one sentence asserting its existence. I do think Infogalactic should be mentioned here in some form. I have converted both Infogalactic and Infogalactic (website) into redirects pointing here, meaning we should give people searching for information on Infogalactic some indication of why they've been redirected here, if only a sentence saying that it's a project he launched in 2016. Plus I think that will help discourage people from recreating an independent article on the topic. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A passing note referencing the Breitbart article could be good - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How's this? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As it is now seems acceptable. While it matches the source, saying "...inspired by errors and inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article..." gives legitimacy to a contentious premise. Any more detail than this seems unnecessary based on current coverage. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of level seems fair enough - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

3BP

re: the question of whether Beale can be considered a kingmaker: Dave Langford's column from SFX (magazine). Actual published hardcopy article. Can we use this as a source? DS (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Countries lived in

I understand he now lives in Italy. Did he previously live in Finland? When did he leave the United States?

((Note: according to the revision History, the previously unsigned comment, seems to have been added by user User:Cagliost (talk | contribs) circa "Revision as of 08:47, 16 November 2016" ... Note added by [a non-robot editor... namely] --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ))

NPOV edits

The idea that the Sad puppies campaign was a ballot manipulation campaign is strongly disputed by the people involved. Since I've got two editors who have decided that the perspective of the sad puppies opponents is the neutral descriptor and that the BLP rules don't matter in this case, I'm not going to get into an edit war. I'll just let the biased edit sit there. It discredits Wikipedia far more than Vox Day, especially since his follow on 'rabid puppies' legitimately was an attempt to make the Hugos ridiculous by manipulating the ballot (Chuck Tingle anyone?). He succeeded and likely will continue succeeding for as long as it amuses the man. The current article has the ballot manipulation tag on the sad puppies but not on rabid puppies effort. This is exactly backwards as far as truth goes but pretty good narrative setting propaganda. TMLutas (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this story from the Guardian characterizes it in similar terms. Perhaps "canvassing" would be a better term, but at any rate the point is that the Sads were doing it first, and VD picked up on it and used the same tactic to push his works ahead on the ballot in 2015 and 2016. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism of the cover of Scalzi's Collapsing Empire for the cover of Corroding empire.

This is apparently part of the Scalzi feud, but at the end of the day Beale made a cover that looks exactly like Scalzi’s and it should likely be documented. Here is one story on it - "Amazon Pulls Castalia House Book for Ripping Off John Scalzi Cover"Jeffery Thomas 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Largely a reblog from File770, which has a followup. The book is now available, with original cover and author name - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

sourced information about subject of article removed?

Please don't remove my adequately sourced information about the subject of the article's self admitted criminal history. Especially by claiming it's a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.71.99 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed speculation about Day's views on women suffrage

Deleted speculation about Day's views on women suffrage. It was clearly wrong. Day has said: "And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization."[1] Knox490 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by a third party in "political views"

@Bilby: reverted my edit removing comments from a third party about Day's political views. In my edit summary I posed a question but in the reversion Bilby simply stated what their edit was, and not why the content should stay in. I do not think it is appropriate to put in some randoms persons comments as Day's political views. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That was added originally as a result of the discussion here, where it was argued that we needed a secondary source (the New Republic piece) to add the claim. I'm ok if you would rather go on direct quotes from Beale, though, so when I added it back I included a quote from Beale. That has since been removed by Grayfell. So I'm a bit lost - do we only want to include statements written by Beale about his political beliefs, or do we only want to include secondary sources describing his beliefs? - Bilby (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about due weight and cherry-picking. The risk is that we end-up piling on every incendiary quote from someone who's entire career is built on being incendiary. Beale isn't reliable for statement's of fact, nor is he a recognized expert on politics or history, so if we're going to be adding substantially more of his own words, we should make sure we have a good reason. This is clearly attributed to Jeet Heer, who is the senor editor of a notable outlet. His statement isn't a controversial assessment of Beale's opinions either. If others feel his original post is necessary, I wouldn't object to putting it back, but I don't understand what it's adding. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've self-reverted it for now. I would still prefer leaving it out, but including his specific words to avoid BLP issues is a reasonable compromise while we discuss it. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with either a direct quote or the comment by Heer. My main issue was that it was removed recently, but I saw that there was prior consensus for including the Heer quote. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Name

I have changed references to "Day" as his last name to "Beale". I mentioned this here before, but it was archived, so here it is again. His pseudonym isn't "Day, Vox", it's "Vox Day" as a specific phrase. It isn't treated by sources as a first and last name. I think it's more formal and appropriate to use "Beale", but I understand that this is disputable. If it's necessary to represent him as "Vox Day", I believe the entire phrase should be used in every instance, instead of "Mr. Day", or "Vox" to his friends. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Languages

I have rephrased the statement about what languages Day speaks to read "Day claims to speak English, French, German, Italian, and "some Japanese"." We have no reference by which we can state this as a fact; we only have a claim by Day. Lulu71339 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CLAIM, we could contextualize it as his own statement, but we should be cautious of implying that he's not being accurate about himself unless we have a specific, sourced reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Saying that Vox Day "claims" to speak various languages, including English, is insinuating that Vox Day is lying about the languages spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.10.162 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is what WP:CLAIM says. Him "claiming" something isn't the same as as him "saying" something. He says he speaks these languages. This is a statement taken from an unreliable, WP:PRIMARY interview, and should not be over-stated. If we're including this at all, we should provide this minimum amount of context. His own statement that he speaks these languages says nothing about how proficient he is in these languages, nor does it explain why these would be particularly relevant to the article. Without a reliable source, this is an appropriate approach. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Claiming gives the impression that he's lying about the languages he speaks. It's no different than saying. Personally, I'm not sure why the languages he speaks (or claims to speak) warrants inclusion in the article. If it's in question, why not just remove the reference all together? 24.172.10.162 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem removing it completely. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing it completely. For what it's worth. 24.172.10.162 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Infogalactic

It's a travesty that you have a redirect for Infogalactic here and it doesn't even have a section on the page. It's got enough news coverage (41 sources in a simple google news search) to establish notability for its own page but to have only one line at time of writing? Come on. Sorting through them, here are two english language, not hagiographic, and reasonably meaty treatments. Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/welcome-to-the-wikipedia-of-the-alt-right/ Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2017/06/22/the-rise-online-altcyclopedia/iXQtJ6JuFE7wxzf98be13N/story.html

TMLutas (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Infogalactic content probably could stand to be expanded a bit, but calling this a "travesty" is a laying it on pretty thick. The Globe article is a single paragraph listing this as one of several alt-right wikis (along with Metapedia and Conservapedia) which barely says anything about the project. It does mock it for its Pizzagate credulity, but it doesn't mention Vox Day. The Wired article is already cited in this article for the single sentence mentioning Infogalactic. This goes into slightly more depth, and also compares Infogalactic to Metapedia and Conservapedia, and again mentions Pizzagate. Since these seem like common threads among sources, perhaps they should also be include here. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Infogalactic project deserves its own page. That a wikipedia competitor doesn't have its own page and redirects here to a one-line reference is the travesty. That the Globe article doesn't mention Vox Day supports my side. TMLutas (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ballot manipulation NPOV problem

It's an NPOV violation to call sad puppies a ballot manipulation campaign. The characterization takes sides in a controversy and is disputed by the people who actually ran sad puppies. The sad puppies campaign came into being as a response to denials that slates even existed at the Hugos and that if people wanted different works to win, they should go out and nominate what they liked just like everybody else and advocate for it. Larry Correia picked up the gauntlet and ran with it. By the end of sad puppies it was blatantly obvious that he had been right and those who denied prior slate voting were wrong. Slates had long existed at the Hugos and with the addition of sad puppies, the existing players got very vocal and obvious about it. TMLutas (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't Correia admit that, if there had actually been a slate in the first place, Sad Puppies would never have worked? DS (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vox Day's recent view on woman's suffrage

This post of mine was removed: On the other hand, Day later said in 2016: "And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization."[2]

This material obviously should not have been removed due to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.Knox490 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the article Infogalactic into Vox Day; dated: November 2018. Proposer's rationale: the article is really a stub and the redirection Infogalactic (website) already exists. Pinging proposer @Tsumikiria: Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - pretty obvious - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing needs serious work

Just went through checking sources. There's too many primary sources, cites to apparent blogs, and cites to sources that would never pass WP:RS. These should all be culled in a week if RSes can't be found.

I also deleted the van Sciver section - it was sourced to a zillion YouTube videos. This is really not an acceptable quality of source for a BLP. Is there RS coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed the tagged sources - before restoring them, we need proper third-party RSes for the BLP notability of each claim - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"SJW" books

Beale's 2015 SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police article cries out for more explanation. I added very brief summaries including (now) wording taken from the Amazon.com page. I also cited both this and its 2017 follow up. All have been deleted by Wikipedia editors, for "editorialising". However, it can't be editorialising simply to state what the books are about. There is no "commentary" or "opinion", whatsoever. The article is about Vox Day and his works, no? I can point to hundreds of articles where an author's books have had information summarised.

The amended article:

In 2015 Beale released SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police,] a book setting out his experiences with what he saw as "intolerant thought and speech policing" caused by activists concerned with social justice ("Social Justice Warriors"). Billed as a "guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks", Beale examines the motives and tactics of SJWs, and proposes various practical measures for individuals to respond and protect themselves. His 2017 follow up, SJWs Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 2). elaborated on the themes of the first book.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogpat (talk • contribs)

His self-published books aren't notable in themselves, without coverage in verifiable mainstream third-party reliable sources showing they're even worth mentioning. A Wikipedia biography isn't a hagiography or an advertisement for the subject - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So, it's no longer "editorialising", but (now) the "notability" of the books? Vox Day is a person sufficiently notable for an entry. People accessing Wikipedia to learn about him can expect to learn about his books. Have you read the books? Clearly not. Are you familiar with their impact? The first book is ranked 260 on US Amazon under the political censorship category. It has a 4.6 rating and 600 plus comments.

In Amazon Australia (where I bought it) it is ranked:

• #9 in (Books > Politics, Philosophy & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Commentary & Opinion). (Above Chomsky's Who Rules the World, and Ken Wilbur's Trump and a Post-Truth World - are they not "notable" either?)
• #17 in (Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political
• #19 in Books > Politics, Philosophy & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Specific Topics > Political Philosophy).

It has 1000 plus reviews on Goodreads with rating of 4.06.

It's been reviewed on numerous websites.

It was the subject of an interview with the author on the largest philosophy podcast in the world, Freedomain radio by Stefan Molyneux. User:rogpat —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

No, you need descriptions from independent, reliable secondary (third-party) sources to describes his book, otherwise, this is unveiled promotion. Amazon listing are considered primary source and thus unusable. Also, use four "~"s to sign your comments. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Amazon's bestseller lists are also a complete joke. Best seller lists are already questionable, and Amazon's are especially flimsy. By themselves, they prove nothing, not even how popular a book is. The article already provides a bibliography which includes these books, and a short paragraph mentioning the book's existence. This is redundant, and lacking independent sources, this should be trimmed. It's not like the titles are particularly cryptic or subtle.

Because he is known specifically as an author, there is some leeway for listing his self-published books, and a bibliography would be the place for it. The article is here to explain why this person is notable as a topic, after all, but we are not here to help him sell more products.

As for Molyneux, notice that he has so-far failed to find a reputable publisher for his own books. Beale got a deal with BenBella Books (not the last time they published an oddball book to attract controversy) for at least one of his non-fiction works, ten years ago. I don't see anything like that here. No amount self-published sources and user generated content will transform this into something significant. There needs to be at least one reliable, independent source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as demonstrated by editorial oversight. This source, if it exists, could be used to provide context for why his self-published books are significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Trust these independent reliable secondary sources will suffice. The book is known for spelling out the anatomy of SJW attacks and ways to defend against them. That is "notable" even without the high levels of sales confirmed by Amazon.

• James Delingpole, The Spectator, Christopher Biggins and the fall of civilisation

13 August 2016 "I’d highly recommend reading Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie, which outlines how these activists operate (‘point and shriek’, ‘isolate and swarm’) and then describes how to defeat them. Absolutely key is refusing to let these malign professional grievance-mongers set the terms of the debate."

• Christopher Chantrill (American Thinker, September 1, 2015)

• Greg Johnson, Counter-Currents Publishing, September 4, 2015

"an indispensable manual for resisting the politically correct witch-hunts of so-called “Social Justice Warriors.” Day gives advice to individuals who are being targeted on how to fight back. He also details two remarkably successful and inspiring popular resistance campaigns against SJWs, GamerGate and Sad Puppy. Finally, he concludes the book with nothing less than a plan to destroy Leftist power root and branch."

• Roosh Valizadeh, Return of Kings, Jan 6, 2016

Incidentally, what have Stefan Molyneux's self published books got to do with the fact that his podcast (the source mentioned) has a very large following? Applying your logic Wikipedia should not cover any movies or books, any consumer product at all, lest it "help sell them more products". What would Wikipedia's hits look like if the movies were taken out?

Rogpat (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to reread WP:RS and try to understand why far-right fringe blogs aren't Wikipedia-quality sourcing. Even the Spectator bit is a passing mention in an opinion piece - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would we use a podcast described as a cult? Or the anti-semitic Greg Johnson (white nationalist)? And why doesn't Johnson's article mention his anti-semitism?"In an article for Counter-Currents, Johnson wrote that Jews are “the principal enemy of every attempt to halt and reverse white extinction.” Writing for the racist journal Occidental Quarterly, Johnson said, “The tragedy of inter-racial dating is that the non-defective few will always be lumped in with the defective many.” Johnson also wrote an article for the white supremacist website Vanguard News Network, in which he stated that "America would be improved by fewer Blacks, Asians, and Mestizos, not more of them. America would be improved by fewer Muslims, not more of them. And of course this country would be vastly improved by fewer Jews." That needs fixing. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)