Talk:America First Political Action Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

White nationalist

@Nmi628: Many media outlets have described the conference as 'white nationalist' - I do not seek to cover this up - I just think as per WP:LABEL that it ought to be attributed. Beaneater (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It was attributed. I included three reliable sources, and I've just added another for you. I'm reverting it back. Nmi628 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nmi628: Please wait so that we can discuss this. I am not disputing that many sources describe the conference as white nationalist. I am not disputing that this is important and should be included in the article (and I put it in when I created the article.) I just think it ought to be attributed so that Wikipedia is not seen to be making this near-libelous accusation. Beaneater (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Your entire edit history is racism and anti-semitism. Wikipedia's policy is to use the language used by reliable sources. If they describe this conference as white nationalist--which they do, without exception--then so do we. The Washington Post uses this language, as does Newsweek, as does Mother Jones, as does the Independent, as every local paper, and on and on. It doesn't matter whether you personally find it "near libelous". Nmi628 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My entire edit history is not racism and anti-semitism. I am not a racist, I am not an antisemite, and these are very serious accusations. WP:PS describes Mother Jones as biased, Newsweek as clickbait, and advises caution with The Independent. Their description of the event, who spoke at it, what specifically was said &c. is reliable, but their characterization of it should at least be attributed. Something like this: "The conference has been widely described as white nationalist. Beaneater (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's certainly much more sourcing with the same label, but I'd be fine with that language as well. Nmi628 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Can we agree on that phrasing? Beaneater (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I should note, though, that it's hard to find a reliable source that *doesn't* calll this conference white nationalist. If you need more, here's business insider. The Washington Post goes further, saying it called for "white supremacy" here. We ought to call a spade a spade. So I'd be amenable to "The America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC; /æfpæk/ AF-pak) is an annual political conference which has been widely described as white nationalist..." etc. That work? Nmi628 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I am glad that we could come to an agreement on this. Wishing you all the best. Beaneater (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dot

@AFPchadking: Adding ", a left-wing outlet," after the mention of The Daily Dot in the lead is unsourced editorializing. Please stop edit warring it in without consensus. Also, your claim that The Daily Dot is unreliable is not in line with community consensus. If you want to try to achieve consensus for this change, feel free to do so below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The Daily Dot is not a quality source for material concerning American, Right-Wing politics--despite what the overall RSP community consensus is. Owing to the biased nature of the source, it is only appropriate to articulate that the source regularly engages in questionable habits--mudslinging for example. As such, I am of the opinion that adding "a left-wing outlet" is a compromise between having the source or deleting it entirely. (AFPchadking (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

Sorry, but you don't get to override community consensus like that. The whole point of formalizing consensus on source reliability is so that we aren't relying on individual editors' opinions. I don't agree with all the various evaluations of sources at RSP, but I do respect and abide by them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The fact that there is a positive consensus at all regarding the Daily Dot is evident of significant bias on this site and amongst its editors. I am perfectly willing to reach a compromise with you, as per the community guidelines you speak so highly of, however, you seem unwilling to budge on even the slightest of changes to this page. This demonstrates that you are not concerned with guidelines or objectivity, but rather with controlling the narrative around controversial figures. The changes I have made have been fair and based on best practices. You have undone every change, even grammatical that I have made. You started and continue to engage in an editing war with me on this and other pages. (AFPchadking (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

If there is established community consensus on something, saying that we need to go with that consensus despite your disagreement with it is not refusal to compromise. If you want consensus to change, begin a discussion to change it. As for the last claim, that I have "undone every change, even grammatical", that's easily disproven with a look at the edit history. The only changes of yours I've undone were to do with this editorializing. Please don't cast aspersions; something I've now asked you three times to stop doing, I'll note. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Fair enough, let me correct the record. Another user was responsible for undoing the majority of my changes. (AFPchadking (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

Great. Now about that editorializing... It appears the conference has been fairly widely described as "a(n) [white nationalist|far-right|extremist] [alternative|rival] to CPAC" so I think we should replace the sentence with: "The Daily Dot has described it as the "white nationalist alternative to CPAC"; Rolling Stone and The Arizona Republic have characterized it as an extremist rival of CPAC." Any editors' opinions of the political leanings of the sources ought to be omitted, obviously. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a blatant POV violation to qualify a source based upon personal opinions.

despite what the overall RSP community consensus is. Best just to go with consensus. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: Thanks for your input. While you're here, any thoughts on my suggested expansion of the sentence to match the "Conference" section? "The Daily Dot has described it as the "white nationalist alternative to CPAC"; Rolling Stone and The Arizona Republic have characterized it as an extremist rival of CPAC." GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@AFPkingchad:} We both agree here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is unwilling to engage with "nazis" as shown on their "No Nazis" page. They won't tolerate it. Of course Nick isn't a Nazi, nor was AFPAC, but this is their own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ZoomerEnlightenment: WP:NONAZIS applies to editors, not article subjects. We have many articles about Nazis, and far more about those who share similar beliefs. I'll add that the only one here who has described Fuentes as a Nazi is you. One source has described the conference as neo-Nazi, which perhaps is because it prominently featured a leader of a neo-Nazi group (Casey, not Fuentes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I'm aware of that, I was simply stating that Wikipedia has a shared bias. WP:NONAZIS has also said that "neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians..." are unwelcome. Nick Fuentes has on livestream called himself a white identitarian, so this applies, and thus any seemingly pro-Nick Fuentes language would be seemingly intolerable. I'm simply stating that attempting to fight Wikipedia's biased position is a lost cause for AFPkingchad. --ZoomerEnlightenment (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ZoomerEnlightment: Our WP:NPOV policy supersedes any essays. We treat Fuentes with a neutral point of view, in the same way we treat any article subjects. The objection to what you're describing as "pro-Fuentes language" is that it is not supported in reliable sources.

As an aside, AFPkingchad has been indefinitely blocked, so your advice to them is somewhat moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)