Talk:Lucian Wintrich

Leftist sources?

A recent edit to the Lucian Wintrich page was made by 72.208.23.54, where a description of Milo Yiannaopolous was removed, and the justification read, "Do NOT cite leftist sources like NYT to describe someone's views, use more neutral sources like WSJ etc".

NYT is a respected source, not a "leftist source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about this diff. The reference was fine and is used on The Gateway Pundit, but stuff like far-right wing about Milo is unsuited on the Wintrich BLP. On the TGP page the same info is stated as Wintrich has collaborated with Milo Yiannopoulos, a "strident" and "polarizing" former editor at Breitbart News with two references. –89.15.236.223 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Inquisitr

User:HaeB: Is Inquisitr a banned source like the Daily Mail? If it is, I apologise for using it as a RS. However if it's not, the first part of the content about Malia Obama should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources that fail WP:RS criteria are rarely banned explicitly (IIRC the Daily Mail is so far the only case where people felt it necessary to make this official, via that RfC); many unsuitable sources are removed every day without that.

Inquisitr is known as a news aggregator without an independent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In any case, the specific blog post cited here also carries a large disclaimer by Inquisitr marking it as an opinion post ("THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY THE OPINION OF DANNY COX AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE INQUISITR"), akin to a self-published source.

All that is before we even start considering whether / which such gossip anecdotes are "even if true, ... relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" (see also WP:NOTNEWS).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:HaeB: What about this from The Daily Beast? It has a left-wing bias, but it does mention the story.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

tweet

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/2/1686263/-WH-correspondent-cronies-Native-Indians-should-go-back-to-your-country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.217.210 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your Daily Kos source states that is a snarky story, maybe it is suited for the RationalWiki. Here WP:BLP does not really support to make fun of the person, no matter how odd they behave. –89.15.236.223 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist" in intro

I've removed the "conspiracy theorist" from the intro sentence, as:

1. There's no citation provided, and no discussion at all in the body of the articles about what "conspiracy theories" he promotes or how central that is to his work.

2. Using such a label (especially without citation) in the intro is highly prejudicial, and I don't think it's appropriate if the promotion of conspiracy theories is not a primary thing that the person is known for. I would want to see multiple reliable sources which referred to him in such a manner.

Incidentally, even if he does believe in one, or a few, conspiracy theories (as many people do), the "conspiracy theorist" label would not be appropriate unless promotion of said theories was one of the person's primary claims to fame. -2003:CA:83C8:2300:1C5F:80CE:1A06:A8E7 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Relevant sources

Please only add reliable third-party sources where Wintrich is mentioned. This article is about Wintrich, not Gateway Pundit. Our readers will be able to click on the wikilink.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how sourcing works. A source doesn't have to mention the article subject to be used in a biography. The sources are all relevant to the specific statement being sourced - that is, that Gateway Pundit is a disreputable purveyor of lies and nonsense. The large number of sources was apparently deemed necessary at the parent article; if you are satisfied with fewer sources for the statement, so am I. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's off topic in this article, but luckily we have wikilinks. If "a right-wing website which is known to publish hoaxes and conspiracy theories" is deemed undue by some editors and no consensus for inclusion can be reached, it should be trimmed, unless you can find several reliable third-party sources linking Wintrich to this statement specifically. Otherwise it may be construed as guilt by association, and perhaps even as a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I don't necessarily have a problem with the statement because of the wikilink, as long as the sources in this article are not off topic. But consensus may become an issue here.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Alt-right" in the lede

I don't think "alt-right" should appear in the lede, but in the body of the text. I moved it to the body of the text, but it was added to the lede again by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, without consensus. The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the text, yet it does not appear there now (only in the lede)...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we could rephrase the lede as "Wintrich has been described as part of the alt-right, but he rejects it.", and then add more about Spencer in the body of the text. Would there be consensus for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, you have it backwards - you removed the well-sourced statement without consensus. Why do you think it's important to say that he's "one of the youngest" people in the White House Press Corps (who cares?) and not mention his notable ideological bent which led directly to the controversies discussed in the article? I don't have an objection to moving the Spencer bit down, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We only need consensus for inclusion, not for removal of content. But I did not remove it. I moved it to the body of the text, where it belongs. As for his youth and gayness, they are unprecedented and historic. Being called "alt-right" is not, and he rejects it anyway, but I'm fine with the trimmed version I suggested above if it saves time. Is that OK please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"We only need consensus for inclusion, not for removal of content"

. Not sure what you are reading to arrive at this conclusion. WP:TALKDONTREVERT (which links to the heading "consensus building in talk-pages") as well as the rest of the consensus policy page refers to consensus building as a form of dispute mediation and contains no partiality concerning whether or not the dispute concerns an inclusion or removal of content. You might be thinking of BLP violation policies, but these do not apply here, as no unsourced, poorly sourced defamatory or potentially libelous content is under dispute. Edaham (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that material can be removed without consensus, but it's untrue. The BLP policy authorizes unilateral removal of unsourced and poorly sourced claims about living people without consensus, but the material in question is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. As for it being "unprecedented and historic," that's not really true - he's 29, and an existing WHPC member was 23. Being 6 years older than the other youngest person is not particularly notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, mentioning Spencer is someone else's lede may be seen as defamatory (and certainly undue). But I've been trying to reach consensus: "we could rephrase the lede as "Wintrich has been described as part of the alt-right, but he rejects it.", and then add more about Spencer in the body of the text." Is there consensus for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Snap! He or she might also be thinking of WP:ONUS which is part of the verifiability policy which states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (with the aim of reducing POV forking or COATRACK). This is similarly not applicable as the information which is being called into question here clearly builds upon an understanding of the subject. I see no reason to alter the lede at all here. It's a very reasonable summary of what people might want to know about this particular subject. Edaham (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Spencer in the lede is WP:UNDUE. And the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the text, yet there is no mention of "alt-right" or Spencer in the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Spencer mention adds unnecessary complexity to the lede, and moved it down. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Why won't you add that he rejects it to the lede? It seems misleading not to mention that.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add the rejection part to the lede. Unlike some of the other alt-right/lite people complaining about their designations, this subject's rejection of this label is quite well covered in secondary sources and not just in interviews with the subject himself. It seems important enough to be in the summary. Edaham (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Great. So why not add ", but he rejects it." to the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

in particular this:

The next day, Posobiec announced that he would host a competing event, the Rally Against Political Violence, in front of the White House. This rally would feature a new slate of speakers, including Wintrich; Cassandra Fairbanks, of the pro-Trump Web site Big League Politics; the political consultant and Periscope pundit Ali Akbar; and the social-media star and InfoWars contributor Mike Cernovich. The events would be held at the same time, to draw a clear distinction between people who would stand with Spencer and those who would not.,

makes it clear by way of a third party that he has actively taken part in an event designed to split from the alt-right. - So rather than say he rejects it, which is primary, why not mention his partaking in the above event and mention its intent based on the above source? This event received a lot of secondary coverage and doesn't source directly from the subject, so it passes DUE and RS. Edaham (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede needs to be a short summary. So "rejects" gets to the point. Then in the body of the text, you could add that he attended an anti-political violence event against Spencer.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

is this short enough: "In June 2017 Wintrich took part in the Rally Against Political Violence, organized to distinguish the supporters from those of the alt-right"? It not only from a high-profile source which shows his rejection of the label, but the additional context also gives way to expansion in the body, where his fellow speakers at the event could be mentioned, showing the peer group to which he belongs and cross influences etc. Edaham (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Masterknighted has fixed the lede. Always good to have a third opinion and I think we should keep it as it is. You could add "In June 2017 Wintrich took part in the Rally Against Political Violence, organized to distinguish the supporters from those of the alt-right" with the RS from the New Yorker to the body of the text, just after Spencer.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it - the cited sources 1 and 2 make absolutely no mention of his "disavowing" anything. Also this verbiage is not suitable for encyclopedic text. Edaham (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He rejects/disavows it. I think it was fine. Please note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. We do need to add that he rejects the term in the lede, otherwise it is misleading. The fact that he attended an event is too specific for the lede (it was only one event), but it would be appropriate for the body of the text, where we flesh out content...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I do think this shows he rejects/disavows it: "Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.”".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It also isn't mentioned in those sources that he rejected it. I am not making an argument based on IDONTLIKEIT. I reverted because the material isn't supported, and even if it were it would be primary. There's no mandate for claiming that his role in speaking at that event (described by the New Yorker as a turning point in the history of the alt-right) would be too specific for the lede. Edaham (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is supported. He rejects it. Please re-read the quote above. He attended one event one day and rejects it every day. So the lede should go with the most summary-like option.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying an option which I hope you will like. Quoting his own rejection seems weaker per WP:SECONDARY than stating what other RS have said about him with regard to his actions, therefore I have (hopefully uncontroversially) stated that he's distanced himself from the term. Something which is supported by the new yorker story, which I have added in a citation to the lede. I have shortened my original proposal to make it more general and have not mentioned the specific event to which the rejection/distancing is attributed. I suggest mentioning the specific event in the body. Edaham (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The term is fine, potentially POV-pushing but we would need an RFC for this and it is certainly better than nothing. However, we don't add references to the lede. The lede is simply a summary of the body of the text, so the references should appear there. The only reason for adding a citation to the lede is if there is a direct quote, but that's not the case here.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've misread, or taken as black or white, a guidance policy regarding redundant citations, which does not apply in this case. Citations are perfectly fine in the lede if and when they are required to substantiate a part of the summary and are absolutely required in BLP cases where information is the subject of debate. WP:LEADCITE Edaham (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There is 0 debate that he has rejected it, or distanced himself from it. They're undue. You may want to expand the first paragraph of the career section with the event he attended.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that robust citations in a lede section of a BLP are "undue". Maybe take a look at some opinions in the essay Wikipedia:Citation_underkill. That's about as deep as we need go into a discussion of policy on this talk page. The issue, including consensus seems to have been resolved for the most part. I agree with and I'll definitely consider how to expand on the event in the career section of the body. Thanks for collaborating and happy editing. Have a great day. Edaham (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had reached a consensus, but User:Masterknighted has jumped in and started reverting without discussion; I have tagged the particular issue and will discuss. His construction is not acceptable under NPOV because it does not reflect what reliable sources say. Wintrich clearly self-identified with the alt-right movement at one time, but says he has moved away from it. The previous consensus wording properly and appropriately reflected that — Wintrich has been described as alt-right and formerly identified himself with the movement, but has since rejected and distanced himself from it. The current version by Masterknighted is unacceptable because it states, as fact, that Wintrich is no longer identified by anyone as alt-right — was formerly identified with the movement. This is not reflected by reliable sources, including academic sources such as Project Censored, which currently identify Wintrich as alt-right, his personal denials notwithstanding. Therefore, the NPOV wording is to state that he has been identified with the movement, attribute his rejection and allow readers to decide where the truth lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of hot air either he said he was alt-right or he did not - Masterknighted (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, then it would be the former. Several sources cited here discuss the fact that he said he was part of the alt-right movement. He has since walked those statements back, but it doesn't change the fact that he once publicly self-identified as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the specific quotation from the first citation in the article: Lucian Wintrich, of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit, told me that, last year, the term alt-right “was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become of establishment conservatism.” Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.” This is factual and cited. The source clearly says that Wintrich counted himself as part of the alt-right at one time, but has since rejected it - so that's what the lede says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

22 DEC 2017 Edit request

Dear Wikipedia,

I am the director of Artists For Trump Coalition. First, I want to commend Wikipedia for offering knowledge to the world and to attempt to do so in a unbiased manner. This is a noble mission.

However I do have a very important correction to bring to your attention. Our group (AFTC) orchestrated the first pro-Trump art exhibition. Furthermore we appear to be the only organic coalition of artists for Trump.

Political commentator Lucian Wintrich has been credited with organizing the first pro-Trump art exhibition on your website Wikipedia. This is factually incorrect.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lucian_Wintrich

Every art exhibition has a life cycle of several stages. Professionals with a deep curatorial understanding know this. If you consider both exhibitions from a holistic point of view, AFTC was without a doubt first.

The AFTC open call began August 4th 2016. This is a documented fact with multiple third party verifications. This all happened weeks before Wintrich even began organizing his show.

Wintrichs’ talk of using interns, suggests Breitbart may have done more than just cover his story. This brings a question of authenticity to the Wintrich show. If the Wintrich show was part of the Breitbart / Brad Parscale Trump advertising campaign, flush with millions of dollars and not open to the public, this would further delegitimize the Wintrich claim.

Artist For Trump Coalition was an grass roots creation. The real thing. I should know, I paid for it myself with my own time building the website and $300 for an open call (open to the public) ad.

Regardless, the AFTC open call was August 4th and this was weeks before anything from Wintrich. Viewed from this perspective, AFTC should be receiving the first trump exhibition title.

I ask that you correct this information on your website and give AFTC its due credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.239.25 (talk) 08:37, December 22, 2017

Reply

The Wintrich article has been changed to specify that the claim of "first pro-Trump art show in the nation's history" was a claim of Wintrich's, as reported by David Freedlander of The Daily Beast. The Wikipedia article had previously stated erroneously that Wintrich's art exhibit was "considered to have been" the first pro-Trump art show, without stating who it was, who had "considered" it so (Wintrich himself). Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

October 2022 edits

I reverted the recent additions via this edit: [1]; my rationale was: "Revert non-neutral changes by a SPA; also at User_talk:Onemorecupofcoffeetilligo#Lucian_Wintrich". -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)