Talk:David Freiheit

Characterization of DF's views

We need more than DF's own opinion of where he stands on the political spectrum for this article. Relying on his own opinion of himself isn't NPOV. The term "non-partisan" is narrow and only means that one isn't a member of a political party. He could still be left or right wing (or something else) regardless of party affiliation. When you look at his YouTube channel and his Twitter feed, they are pretty clearly targeted at an audience that is sympathetic to views that are anti-left in the American context, eg: support for Michael Flynn, criticism of Breonna Taylor and criticism of Covid 19 restrictions in various jurisdictions. While he presents his opinions as merely those of a "lawyer explaining the law", they are very skewed and in some cases untenable legal opinions. We can do better here. 192.252.235.6 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael Flynn is innocent, and was severely abused by a far-left activist judge. When a prosecutor comes before a judge and seeks to dismiss a case, it's not the judge's place to step in and persecute the defendant himself. 2601:647:4F00:113A:F918:A2BA:61E:4AE1 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Aside from being completely false, this isn't relevant. Jibal (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael Flynn was not guilty of the charges brought before him because of the law involved. He cannot materially lie to the FBI because they had transcripts of the conversation that were the center of the issue. Further it is true that it is not the judges place to decide when a prosecution is to go forward or not, that is the discretion of the state and its representative is the prosecutor. 75.167.3.26 (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you have reliable sources that say something about where he stands, we can cite those. But "When you look" is original research. Jibal (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-left? Or anti-mainstream? He fully supports his opinions with factual information, usually information that is avoided by mainstream media and corporate news. I have found some of his opinions disagreeable, but never untenable. Not to mention that many of his opinions and controversial views have proven to be true after a while. I'm tired of Wikipedia's bad practices of sourcing opinions that blatantly mislabel individuals (or organizations) as skewed or extreme when they're clearly not. I would not consider anything DF says is purposefully skewed. It just so happens the information that is provided by the mainstream happens to be skewed more to the right because the information he tries to bring forward is information that gets buried. Thus, you will be conflating he stands on the political spectrum with what he is trying to bring to light, which would be a type of unfair mischaracterization. 76.184.97.233 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a blog ... none of these opinions are relevant. Jibal (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

POV: Political views

The section describing his political views is laughable; the only sources are himself and a random blog. More neutral sources are urgently needed. The fact that he is claimed to be politically neutral right above a section detailing his membership in a right-wing political party is ridiculous. Stockmausen (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I second the laughability that Freight's views as being being politically neutral. Someone who is neutral doesn't sing the praises of every rightwing conspiracy theory that comes his way. People who run for office under the banner of far-right quasit-fascist parties shouldn't be called neutral. Brian L Raney (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Viva is extreme hard right. His streams consist of non-stop flows of fake news, conspiracy theories and lies. The page is not accurate in the current state. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Stupid smear is stupid. I've watched his videos for years, and if he's "hard-right" to you, you're left of Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:113A:F918:A2BA:61E:4AE1 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

While I don't think it's accurate to characterize Viva Frei's channel content with these terms... I was unaware that "fake news," "conspiracy theories," and "lies" were ONLY capable of coming from those who are "far-right."

If we're trying to peg him based on the tribal nature of "left" and "right" in the U.S., I would say he's center-right. Maybe in regard to Canadian politics he's on the "right." 2600:1700:BC90:9070:59A9:892A:F71:37D7 (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This particular section of this talk page exemplifies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia: a far-left bias of its editor base, selective, yet restrictive material sourcing to bolster that particular point of view, and locking articles and ganging up on editors to work around the rules of edit-warring.

The section in Freiheit's page on his political views is the most neutral of any wikipedia entry I have read, specifically because it lacks any statements classifying Freiheit as "left" or "right". Whoever is critiquing Freiheit's views as "far right" and disputing the neutrality of a section of the page is engaging in "confession through projection." Steven Britton (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

your live feed

fantastic thx michael 67.69.76.108 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of his role and his views.

He is a far-right conspiracy theorist and spreads disinformation. The description currently is not accurate. The page should reflect his extremist, hard-right and conspiratorial views. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are a lefty trying to push your inaccurate spin on events and attempt to shut down anyone who disagrees with your lies. 81.99.135.43 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

TruthBuster21223, the content you added was not adequately supported by the source. You need better sources before updating the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism, please lock

This article has repeatedly been subject to vandalism by partisan hacks who makes outlandish and frankly laughable claims trying to push his point of view. I therefore request for the time being this article be locked for any and all edits from the version it is at, at the time of writing this 46.230.133.45 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see below. For all the chest beaters edit warriors coming here to edit war, I would like to point out that calling edits you do not agree with vandalism does not help your case. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Far out!

Noting as a passing observer that the sources removed here did not discuss subject at all. The article about People's Party of Canada does describe it as far right. Whether we want the reverted version or the changed to version is not for me to say. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting status quo ante does not include the contested content and that subject's political affiliation was not in the lead. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The PPofC article describes it as right to far-right. We also need to be careful about using popular press when deciding if a party is "far-right". One of the issues is "far-right" is typically poorly defined. When does a party move from "right" to "far-right". While right/left are typically not contentious or value laden labels, far-X can be considered as such thus LABEL would suggests attribution is needed. Beyond that, the two sources in question described Bernier as far-right, not the party itself. Springee (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • PPC is to the right of the already right wing CPC. It is thus fair to describe it as far or further right in the Canadian context. Not to mention, it holds views associated with the far and even alt-right such anti-vax, anti-immigration and led by a far-right individual. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Looking at the PPC talk page it appears you may be either misrepresenting or taking the extreme interpretation of some of their positions. For example, the talk page makes it clear they aren't anti-vaccine, rather they are opposed to the associated mandates/compelled vaccination.[1] That is not the same as being opposed to taking the vaccine. Political positions are often complex so trying to use such simplifying labels is often not helpful, especially when context is stripped away. Springee (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      • So as an uninvolved but curious observer, does the party affiliation belong in the lead? Does it give undue weight? Do we need to label the party at all? Fascinated but not caring one way or another. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think we should--and while Springee said we only do this for right-wing groups, I think that's a misconception. But we should be concise and careful in the lead, and of course everything needs to be meticulously sourced in the text, and be fair. If this party is on a spectrum, our text should reflect that, etc. But yes, for political parties and (former) candidates I'd say this is pretty much a given. I mean, for "Republican" in a US politician's article it's silly, but for the lesser-known parties (and this is a matter of judgment) it makes sense. Think of WP:OVERLINK--you wouldn't link United States but you might link Southern United States or Piedmont (United States). Drmies (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because a wikipedia article classifies a group as far-right doesn't make it true. One cannot logically reference another Wikipedia article to define something; particularly when one is classifying a political ideology as "far-" anything. The terms "far-left" and "far-right" are also highly subjective and therefore of extremely little utility. Steven Britton (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The guy is a right wing conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter. Seriously, just look at how he calls Trudeau a dictator. This should be reflected in his profile here. 174.91.205.169 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Radio X collab

He's back as a weekly collaborator of CHOI Radio X, a radio station in Quebec city, since 2-3 weeks.

A previous paragraph about it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Freiheit&diff=next&oldid=1122656464 was deleted.

It's public interest to know where Freiheit is expressing his views. Hecatez (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I read that when its not contentious I can add info about somebody without RS. I just put that he's present weekly on a radio show and Springee reverted my changes and asked for RS. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hecatez (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Viva is a well known ultra far-right conspiracy theorist. This page doesn't reflect that. He is well known on Twitter now for his constant tweeting of misinformation and conspiracy theories. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but that's contentious.

I would like to add something factual and not contentious. Hecatez (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)