Jump to content

Talk:James Allsup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because most of the sources in this article were not discussed in the previous AFD. This is mainly the case because of the numerous sources that have been published about him attending the Unite the Right rally and then resigning as president of the WSU College Republicans, neither of which had occurred at the time of the last AFD >1 year ago. Therefore, this article is not eligible for speedy deletion under G4 because it is not "substantially identical" to the previous version. --Everymorning (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

I've undone this revision diff; it removed a number of sources. Suggest discussing here on Talk if there are concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sources because the mic.com is heavily biased against him and the tone of the sections I edited were polemic towards James Allsup. Examples: "while still trying to avoid sympathizing with the rhetoric of white nationalists" This sounds like something straight off rationalwiki, a snarky attempt to call a man who does not identify as alt-right or white nationalist - exactly that. I have just put in a reconciled edit that should remove some of this. I'm willing to discuss it more, but I definitely want to see that snarky point removed. It has, in simple words: no place on a neutral article. The other point I have a problem with is the one about how he posted a video about unite the right only to immediately delete it... that is not relevant to this section. I have moved it into the following section. Kazuok (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't fully agree with the removal. For example, Mediaite describes Allsup's YouTube channel as follows:
  • Allsup is a YouTube partner who has nearly 150,000 subscribers to his channel and over 20 million views on his videos. He posts political and cultural commentary often attacking ethnic diversity, feminism, and Muslims.
I suggest this be added to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be added in a way that isn't negatively or positively promoting his channel - in my opinion. We can say he is a critic of feminism, Islam and, assuming that we were to find an exact source match to Mediaite's claim of him attacking ethnic diversity (I've watched his videos, and in my opinion, someone saying he supports an immigration policy of where an immigrant is actually contributing to the society (he mentioned having a working knowledge of English, a sufficient IQ and net worth specifically) is not explicitly against ethnic diversity) because that seems entirely like them sensationalizing his work in order to generate clicks - i.e. clickbait. I'll hold off on any edits until I hear back from you on this Kazuok (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bothell High

None of the references given definitively link the James Allsup at Charlottesville to the James Allsup at Bothell High. Therefore, per WP:BLP, I have removed the information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • There is at least one RS reference I could find that makes that link: [1] Note, in particular, the quote "Allsup, 21, was raised in Bothell, Washington. In 2013, while attending Bothell High School he started a Change.org campaign called “Stop monitoring your students’ Twitter accounts." Everymorning (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Claim

@Rockypedia: I strenuously object to changing "say" back to "claim". WP:SAY is Wikipedia guideline, which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The source does not say "claim", it says "told Fox News". What exception do you think applies here that justifies the use of this loaded word? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed "claimed" and "violently", as neither term appears in the source. My sense is that he did claim to have been "violently" attacked, but no one knows how violent the attack was, if there actually was one, as it appears there are no secondary sources that witnessed the attack or any video of the attack. Rockypedia (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I still object to the use of "claim" and don't understand why you put that back in after I removed it. If you're not going to remove it, do you mind if I do? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
are you referring to the use of "claim" where he said the guy in the mask was Jewish because he had a big nose? Rockypedia (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Is there some other use of "claim" in the article? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
That usage of "claim" is well within the parameters suggested by WP:CLAIM. Are you seriously arguing that him saying a masked man must be Jewish because he has a big nose is more of a "statement" than a "claim"?? Rockypedia (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that. What part of WP:CLAIM are you talking about? Does the cited source call it a "claim"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
My friend, if you want to present the "big-nosed Jew" bit as a statement of fact from Allsup rather than a claim, you're gonna need an RfC for that. I'm astounded that this conversation is even necessary. Rockypedia (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: An rfc seems like overkill. I've asked for a third opinion at WP:3. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: As far as Allsup being attacked, that seems clearly enough a case where claimed is inappropriate. Alsup told teporters he was attacked, that is really all that needs to be included in the article. Use of the word claim unnecessarily implies untruth.

As far as the statement that the attacker is Jewish, that should not be included in the article in any form. This confused me because I conducted a word search for "Jew" to find the appropriate sevtion, and those letters never appears on the page. It was only after reading the whole article that I found an image of the word in a screen capture. This all clearly fails to meet WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF WP:OR, WP:RS and, most importantly, WP:BLP. The Stranger as a journal meets RS. By the time we get to the end of this article, where the author casually states that Allsup has made multiple trans-phobic and racist comments, it's become at least borderline opinion. But we don't even have that. We have a picture, sent to the opinion peice, by an anonymous member of the public, pertaining to be from Allsup's facebook page. And the author of the jounal makes no comment on tne picture beyond "Allsup made multiple ant-Semitic comments". Before we can possibly include a statement like thisin a BLP we need, at the bare minimum, a clear, non-opinion RS making the statement. We can't make such a statement based on what we, as editors, interpret as the meaning of an image submitted to a newspaper by an anonymous contributor perporting to be from a self-published primary source like facebook. That fails to meet so many guidelines that I have removed it myself.

Can I urge all editors to read WP:BLP? This is imprortant stuff. Claims that Allsup is racist, dishonest or should be punished are potentially defamatory. They can not be sourced to blogs or included with weasel words like "labelled by some" or "demanded by many people", as they are now. We also have to exercise extreme care when using sources such as buzzfeed, which have known consistency issues. I've removed all material that appears to violat BLP guidelines. If editors are confident that it does meet BLP requirements, of course reel free to reinstate it. And can I urge all editors to go through this article and check that any potentially defamatory statements are well attributed to reliable sources. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right?

The case for including "alt-right" as a descriptor in the lead seems weak. There's nothing in the body of the article that describes him as alt-right, but it's in the lead. The lone source I can find that ID's him as alt-right is Mediaite. Taken alone, does that qualify as WP:RS enough to justify describing him as alt-right in the lead? I'm asking for outside opinions here. Rockypedia (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure he self identifies as alt-right, see the "white supremacist" block above for links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2601:580:4200:5be7:550f:6df1:761c:2ce8 (talk • contribs)
Putting this in the lead when it's not in the article and there is no citation is a violation of WP:LEAD and WP:BLP. I'm going to remove it. If anyone wants to restore this, put it in the article first, with a citation, then we can summarize for the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Re IP comment above: according to this article he actually says he's a "paleoconservative"/"right-wing libertarian" and that "alt-right" is a slur. So he seems to explicitly NOT identify himself as alt-right. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Descriptions of Allsup

Here's how he's referred to in various media reports:

  • The press conference was also supposed to include ‘’white nationalist’’ social media personalities Baked Alaska and James Allsup…The Atlantic
  • Richard Spencer let others do the talking for him, retweeting a post from fellow white nationalist James Allsup.Mic.com
  • Before James Allsup was a burgeoning celebrity of the so-called “alt-right,” traveling the country to promote white nationalism and criticize multiculturalism, he led a takeover of his college’s young Republican organization.The Spokesman-Review (local source)
  • James Allsup, a right-wing YouTuber and member of the College Republicans who is careful about directly associating with the alt-right, had another vision of purpose for the rally attendees. Mic.com. This is from June 2017, before Unite the Right rally where he was essentially outed as associating with the alt-right.
  • …James Allsup, a budding alt-right figure who resigned as head of Washington State University’s student GOP group after participating in the Charlottesville rally. Washington Post

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a couple of these. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Descriptor in the lead?

In the post-“Unite the Right” coverage, Allsup is referred to as “alt-right” or “white nationalist”. Should this be added to the lead?

I removed “conservative” by the way, as it does not seem to apply. Far-right is more correct, or any of the above. I would appreciate some feedback – I think we should include a descriptor. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just use the descriptions in reliable sources. If they describe him as far right, describe him that way. If they don't, then we can't. The only other thing we have to worry about is neutrality. Are these sources a fai representaion of how Allsup is portrayed in the media? I have concersn that the sources seem to have a left bias. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mark Marathon: Allsup an up-and-comer, so to speak, so he gets covered sporadically. Here’s from Spokesman-Review, in his own words:
  • James Allsup denies he’s a racist. He also denies he’s a white nationalist. The term is “not very descriptive” and “used as a slur term by the media to label people as something that they know is unpopular,” he said in an interview. “I prefer the term American nationalist.” But it’s difficult to square Allsup’s preferred label with his stated belief that America is a place for those of European descent, whom he called “the founding stock” of the country. Diversity, he said, is not an inherent good.
Allsup insisted none of his political positions “are coming from a place of hate or dislike.” “I think that other cultures have a place,” he said. “I value other cultures, and I think that other cultures have a right to exist, and other people’s. But they can exist in their own countries.” (…)
Allsup spoke passionately about how he would handle undocumented immigrants. “I am frustrated that we haven’t seen wholesale militarized deportation forces, to be honest with you. I am disappointed that we’re not seeing every single DACA illegal rounded up and thrown in the back of an ICE van and sent back wherever they came from,” he said, referring to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protected undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children. link
This sounds remarkably similar to Richard B. Spencer and [[Identity Evropa which are described in their wiki articles as white supremacist. Allsup comes across is even further right of them. So alt-right is about right, imo, and is consistent with how sources describe him above: "alt-right" and "white nationalist". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

White Supremacist

If the editors are so adamant about including "is a white supremacist" in the lede, it might also be pertinent to add that James Allsup is of Asian-American heritage. White supremacy is so powerful that even the Asians are white nationalists now. It's as if Hitler is getting the old Axis back together again. >inb4 including him being Asian isn't noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

First I want to note there was a consensus reached in 2017 to label him as such. I also want to add I believe a) he is less than 15% Asian-American and b) doesn't self-identify as such. I don't see how that is important to his beliefs.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Like clockwork. Alright enjoy yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

"James Orien Allsup (born September 7, 1995) is an American white supremacist" either completely remove "white supremacist" or change it to "alleged white supremacist". The article states James Allsup is a white supremacist and uses 7 sources to state this as if it were fact. 6 out of these 7 just state the exact same unsupported claim with no actual evidence. The last one that says "Nick Fuentes, who formerly co-hosted the “Nationalist Review” radio program with white nationalist James Allsup, also attended the event." is also an unsupported claim with no actual evidence. When 6 out of 7 sources state the same thing, one of them even uses another one as its evidence, and all 7 sources have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back them up then you cannot state things as these as if they were facts. The most that you can do with these sources is say that James Allsup is an alleged white supremacist. JGDiaz (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Sourcing complies with the Core content policies and the Biographies of living persons policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There is essentially nothing that can be done to change this to something other than white supremacist. It would require a miracle. Several self-referential leftist tabloids will always be enough for wikipedia due to its standards based on raw popularity instead of truthful analysis, aside from egregiously unreliable sources. There will never be articles about James Allsup being anti-racist, and using terms such as "American Nationalist" or even white nationalist will be rejected, in favor of white supremacist, due to the principle of overlapping terminology sharing traits. Another example of of a flaw in Wikipedia are the alleged new right. One notable example is the Jewish Laura Loomer who still listed as alt-right, when the first sentence of alt-right says "neo-nazi...," due to a tragic period between 2016- pre charlottesville 2017, where alt-right had a very vibrant civic nationalist and anti-racism stride, before concentrating around white nationalism in late 2017.
It's extremely difficult for me to grasp how a zionist jew is affiliated with neo-nazis, but the standard wikipedia uses are just popular sources, and she's a victim of that term's transition, as I cannot picture any other nouns, phrases, habits, or labels that would make it mandatory to associate her with people who believe the holocaust never occurred, or that she should be gassed. Essentially zero of Loomer's supporters, Loomer, or the actual alt-right would dare care her alt-right, but since out of touch 300 word tabloids call her such from a year or 2 ago, that fits the bill. Popularity, over truth. Perhaps Wikipedia must be that way, as wiki was never meant to be a "truth-seeking" source, but an aggregate of media perceptions. Wikipedia will report something, even if that thing is incorrect, as long as sources say it to be so. If you have a problem against wikipedia, in actuality, you have a problem against popular media. Nevertheless, it is still important to note this, if you're concerned about the sanctity of this site. To others, perhaps unaware, I write this because Allsup just released a video slamming wikipedia for this article just a bit ago. Some tension should be expected.2601:982:4200:A6C:18F:79C9:D679:9C6 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

He is not a white supremacist. He is an american nationalist. 2601:583:600:290:E1A2:22B0:EEA8:A1D5 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Please join in the conversation above. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lede

I'm pinging @K.e.coffman:, @Everymorning:, @Kendall-K1:, @Grayfell:, @Undertaker5000: who were part of the original discussion in 2017 or are actively involved currently. There are 7 sources there that list Allsup as a white supremacist. It was changed on March 5 to white supremacist with many sources listed [2]. After some reverts, it was changed back to white supremacist per sources listed [3]. I do not mind changing it back to what the consensus was in 2017 but there needs to be a clear consensus since this page will be unprotected tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am also debating asking for a longer protection per the IP comment above which says "Allsup just released a video slamming wikipedia for this article just a bit ago. Some tension should be expected." HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
his video to Allsup's some 200k+ subscribers. Some of Allsup's subscribers were taken aback by the white supremacist claims. Allsup, in the strongest possible terms, rejects the labels of white supremacist, white nationalist, and alt-right. He accuses the media of lying for political gain.2601:982:4200:A6C:18F:79C9:D679:9C6 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC) [1]
I see that but, and someone can tell me if I am interpreting this wrong, Wikipedia goes on what the verifiable sources say not on what the person claims. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. For example, I could claim to the best Tennis player in the world but if sources don't say that it cannot be put into Wikipedia. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I may not be able to reply for an hour or so but I will try to be back as soon as possible. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that to be the case concerning wikipedia's standards. In the attached video, Allsup claims to be an "Identitarian," stating that this position was forced by the left's (neoliberal's?) reliance on identity politics, and himself needing to be "realistic" about the political landscape in the current era of racial and ethnic heterogeneity, compared to previous periods in American history.
If one is aware of Identity Evropa, Allsup, in the video, claims to be a member of that organization. That organization is listed in wikipedia as a neo-nazi organization, and Allsup gave a speech there a day or two ago. Perhaps listing Allsup as a white supremacist neo-nazi would be even more accurate. 2601:982:4200:A6C:18F:79C9:D679:9C6 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should wait for other people's opinions because a statement like that would surley get people angry without many people agreeing to it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that 7 references spamming a likely defamatory statement in the lead of a BLP is blatantly biased and possibly against BLP policy. Now, I have no real formed thoughts about this, as I had this brought to my attention by someone who showed up in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, and I vaguely remember watching one of Allsup's videos a month or two ago and shutting my phone off in the first minute. But, I think that at least the reference spam should be removed, and at most move the mention of white supremacist to elsewhere in the lead. The 7 sources that support that claim are all sources listing him among others as users banned on certain areas for hate speech, white supremacist, etc. I am of the opinion that when Uber decides he's a racist, it's not enough to put it as the first claim made in the article other than his nationality. Again, I haven't read much into BLP policy on this and am simply making a passing comment. Happy editing! Vermont | reply here 23:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I see this article has turned into a pile of crap since I stopped watching it. You all need to spend less time arguing and more time reading WP policies. That statement about Allsup being a white supremacist does not belong in the lead as the article is currently written, because it is not supported by anything in the article. See WP:LEAD. The seven citations don't belong there, and are a red flag that show the statement is almost certainly not supported by RS. See WP:CITEKILL. If you actually look at the citations, most of them are crap. See WP:RSN. I have not bothered looking to see if any of them are really RS, because any attempt to edit this will surely be met with resistance. If any of them are, and Allsup denies it, then the statement needs to be qualified. See WP:BLP. Good luck to you all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Would white nationalist be better? Or an Alt-Right figure? I see the consensus in 2017 was that he was an alt-right figure. An editor has suggested [4]: Nationalist, activist, Identitarian but I am unsure if that is enough.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I looked back to around October 2017 and the intro sentence was "James Allsup (born 1995) is an American YouTube political commentator, blogger, and the former president." I am completely fine going back to that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"political commentator" is perfectly unbiased, and I think that would work well. A controversies section could be created to use some of the 7 references that currently support the "white supremacist" claim. Vermont | reply here 23:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: I like that idea. I'm going to leave this here because, like Kendall-K1 says above, any change will be met with resistance. I'm going to wait and see if anyone else has any ideas but I agree "political comementator" seems like the most neutral. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
He is not notable for being a general political commentator, though, is he? As far as I know, most sources mention him specifically because of his politicized racism, whatever the particular outlet's in-house term for it is. If we're picking a vague term specifically because it downplays the reason someone is notable, that's a form of whitewashing. His rejection of the term should be mentioned, but it should be contextualized and attributed, and does not over-rule a relatively large number of sources which specifically mention the alt-right/white-whatever aspect. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So maybe it shouldn't be in the first line of the lede, just for clarity reasons, but the second sentence instead. The second sentence can say something like... Allsup has been called a white supremacist by many sources (list source) but he vehemently rejects these claims. And maybe instead of political commentator it can be alt-right political commentator? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3R7kxcaI_4

SPLC profile

The brouhaha seems to be over Allsup's profile in the SPLC: "Allsup built his brand on base, reactionary conservative tropes, appealing to Donald Trump's supporters, and creating "triggering" videos, before fully descending into the white nationalist politics of the alt-right.

Allsup released a video attacking, in part, the "lying media" and the "globalist left". I assume this means the Lügenpresse and (((globalist))) left, both of which are white supremacist tropes. The SPLC has been discussed many times and their categorisation of Allsup as white nationalist should stand, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Just to clarify for my own understanding, you believe supremacist should be changed to nationalist because it fits in with the rest of the article? I can get behind that, esp since Kendall-K1 went through the sources in the lede and left only two sources that fit the RS criteria. I do want to add that I don't know if that is best fit under controversy or another section besides the lede though. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It's really the same thing, with "white nationalist" being a euphemistic form of "white supremacist"; see for example this RfC: Talk:Richard_B._Spencer/Archive_2#RfC:_White_Supremacist_vs_White_Nationalist. I think we could say that he espouses "white supremacist ideology" or "is a white supremacist", which would be perfectly in tune with Allsup being a member of Identity Evropa. He's not that well known (compared to Spencer). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

How about this: "James Allsup (born 1995) is an American alt-right political commentator, blogger, and the former president of the College Republicans chapter at Washington State University (WSU). His views have been described in the media as a white supremacist (sources) although he has denied such allegations (sources). On a different note: Why is there so much detail about his time in university in the lede? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe instead of denies it can say "He considers himself a white nationalist/ and or Ethnocentrist"....a lot of sources also describe him as a white nationalist. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This source "Twitter suspends James Allsup, WSU student and far-right provocateur", Seattle Times, describes Allsup as "far-right".
  • Allsup is a far-right activist who’s been accused of sowing racial divisions on campus since he led WSU’s chapter of the College Republicans and organized a “Trump wall” demonstration more than a year ago. (...) In mid-November, Allsup was among a handful of far-right figures who were stripped of their verification checkmarks — visual cues that Twitter gives to prominent accounts to help other users ensure they are authentic.
I would go with: "James Allsup (born 1995) is an American far-right political commentator and YouTube personality. He is the former president of the College Republicans chapter at Washington State University (WSU). Allsup's views have been described in the media as white supremacist, (sources) a charge that he denies. (sources) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I like that, I think it is a good compromise. I have found some sources that he denies such claims [5], [6] - "Allsup interviewed white supremacist Richard Spencer on YouTube, but he claims that he is not a racist nor a white nationalist" and I don't foresee any problems. I think there would be more problems saying he is than he isn't. Regardless, should I find more sources than these? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I think two sources for the denial are fine. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I am going to leave this here for an hour or so in case anyone has any opposing views but I vote yes to replacing the lede with this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd accept that compromise. I don't love the "described by media as" phrasing. I like it less and less the more I see it, which is more often than I'd like. Who do we mean when we say "the media", and we are we so reluctant to just accept what the media is saying? "The media" are the only reliable sources we have who talk about this person. If we don't believe our sources when they say he's a white supremacist, perhaps we shouldn't bother with the article at all.
I feel like several people here have participated in discussing this exact phrase used elsewhere, so sorry for hammering the point. It's common enough on Wikipedia, and I probably added that phrasing to articles in the past myself, but at this point I think it's usually a mistake that weakens articles. Every time a racist says something about their exact, persnickety preference for what term should be used to categorize their flavor of racism, Wikipedia ends up taking them far, far too seriously under BLP. BLP is not a tool to be abused by white supremacists for public relations purposes. If we treat his preference as exactly equal to all of the many reliable sources that disagree with him, we are making a mistake. His preference is relevant because this article is about him, but he is not a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell: yes, it was a bit lazy of me to replicate this language. Please feel free to propose a change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell: I completely understand what you mean, however another wording I can think of is 'many people say.' I see this used on articles like Serena Williams (which I know is very off topic for this page but it is the first one that came to mind) which states "Some commentators, players and sports writers regard her as the greatest female tennis player of all time." I can propose "many academics, journalists, and news casters describe him as..." The only problem I can see is people debunking them as "fake news." Maybe he has been described as and just get rid of media people all together. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell:, @K.e.coffman: Does this sound better? "James Allsup (born 1995) is an American far-right political commentator and YouTube personality. He is also the former president of the College Republicans chapter at Washington State University (WSU). Allsup's views have been described as white supremacist, (sources) a charge that he denies (sources)." I just removed "in the media" and added "also" before the former president. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I like it. "Has been described as" is certainly accurate and supportable, but it's pretty easy to challenge that as WP:WEASEL. But honestly, nothing is likely to persuade readers who don't accept reliable sources, of which there are many. Many non-accepting readers, but also many reliable sources.
I've been reviewing sources to get a sense for how they actually describe his position, but it's not really helping. Sources either briefly describe his politics, or they don't bother and call him a "white ___" to save time. There is an issue here of trying to summarize multiple sources which rarely seem to agree on a specific term, even if they all support the underlying idea. Just related to Allsup, sources describe the Unite the Right event as a white nationalist/white power/white supremacist rally. Sources describe marchers as white nationalists and sometimes white supremacists, and Allsup was definitely a marcher, but sources directly linking A to B are harder to find. I know from past experience that reverts with "link doesn't say he's a X" as an edit summary are common for this kind of thing. Allsup attended with other white nationalists and neo-Nazis, and gushed over Richard Spencer, as supported by sources, so this isn't synth, but still.
I dunno. I'm sick of reading about this guy. I like the proposal. My non-vote is to go with it for now, and if anybody thinks of something better we can discuss, if needed. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree and I'm done for the night. I'll check back in the morning and update the lede (or anyone else can feel free to) barring any further issues. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
For records: The lead in the current version of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Allsup&oldid=831670190 22 March 2018) looks good to me! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

edit request Thu 2 Aug 2018

hello: this article does not state that Allsup apparently graduated in 2017, per this Huffington Post article. plz upldate article with new info. as it currently reads, Allsup is still a student. oh yes here is template:

173.85.200.56 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) edited 00:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

White Nationalist

It is very clear that Allsup is a white nationalist

1: Attended the DC Free Speech rally and sided with Richard Spencer.

2: He did a podcast on altright.com alongside Richard Spencer where he made a multitude of antisemetic jokes.

3: He attended Charlotesville and was slated to speak. This is an event that was mostly just past around white nationalist circles, to simply claim he was going there to "cover it" is obviously a lie.

4: He invited neo-nazi Eli Mosley (real name as [Elliot Kline]) on his show where he a: spoke positively about white nationalist organization Identity Evropa. In addition, he spoke positively of the recent Charlotessville return rally only attended by white nationalists.

5: Grasps onto conspiracy theories to justify antisemitism pointed out in point 2.

6:Advocates obviously antisemetic conspiracy theory that Israel controls US foreign policy.

If one were to examine his following, it is very clear that he works directly with white nationalists and echos their sentiments exactly. Even if his initial description is not changed, I think the article as it is is quite bias and does not reflect him accurately.

His views directly align with white nationalist/supremacist ones. For example, he frequently talks about how black people are less intelligent than white people due to “genetic differences”.

Alright but please do not change "far-right" to "white nationalist" without getting a consensus here first. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

He also had a debate with internet personality Destiny over gun control where he explicitly said "glad you recognise the merits of white nationalism, Destiny". Stream date: 2/21/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.196.173 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Do you even listen to yourself? As a leftist you should be for free speech. Extremes on both sides hate free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.137.222 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Change "far-right" to "right-wing". Vorbing (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia uses content provided by reliable sources to describe individuals. Allsup is characterised repeatedly by sources as being "far-right", as opposed to being "right-wing". Stormy clouds (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Literally read his political compass video shows that he is indeed right, not far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HessHeinrich (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Edit: James Allsup is not apart of the alt-right nor a "neo-nazi". Also stop using Huffington Post. It isn't a reliable news site. HighDJ7 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  •  Not done Information is sourced, and HuffPost has been determined to be a reliable news source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If Allsup is not part of the alt-right or a neo-Nazi then why does he routinely parrot their talking points and associate with their members? For example:
    • He has denied the Holocaust in the past
    • He spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories
    • He attended the Unite the Right rally on the side of the far-right protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia on 11-12 August, 2017 and he was scheduled to speak at that rally
    • He hosts a podcast with someone who has said that race-mixing is "degenerate"
    • He has run up to avowed white supremacist and neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and thanked him personally. He's done a video interview with Spencer and has repeatedly retweeted him
    • He has called for "voluntary" racial segregation, as if anyone who isn't a massive racist would ever call for people to self-segregate
    • He is a member of Identity Evropa, a confirmed white supremacist and neo-Nazi group and the group that coined the "you will not replace us" chant made infamous in Charlottesville
    • He has proudly proclaimed that he is the first elected official to come on The Daily Shoah, a podcast connected to the white supremacist and neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer
    • He has displayed clear evidence of racism, he has stated that "poor whites commit less crime than middle class blacks." and that "the average white IQ is 105. The average African IQ is below 70."

James Allsup is a neo-Nazi and most certainly is a member of the alt-right, and as such is a racist, an antisemite, a Holocaust denier. Peadar Ó Croidheáin (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two accounts: Excluzziver and Jean-Francois Gariépy

Here's my edit summary from my first reversion: "Excluzziver has made less than 50 edits in 8 years, has suddenly reappeared in the midst of this controversy after no edits since October 2018". Note, I was talking about the Excluzziver account.

Then, on this talk page, Jean-Francois Gariépy stated here, "My removal of this section was undone by User:Ewen Douglas who failed to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and claimed that my editing must have been a bad faith one because I had not edited other articles in the past 7 years." Again, note that this was written under the Jean-Francois Gariépy account.

It appears crystal-clear to me that this editor became confused about which account he was using when he descended upon this article. He made an edit with the Excluzziver account, and then, while logged in under the Jean-Francois Gariépy, complained that I had undone "his" edit. If that isn't a sockpuppet, I'll eat my hat. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: I'm afraid I don't read it that way. I think Jean-Francois was referring to [7] this edit, not Excluzziver's edit. However, ANI might be appropriate because although Exclussiver isn't a new account I suspect he came here because of the YouTube video I mention above. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

:: Ah you are correct, on all counts. My mistake. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've raised the holocaust source issue at WP:RSN

I pinged the active editors. I think that it will be resolved there. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's where the new editors are coming from: Jean-Francois Gariépy's YouTube video "The Wikipedia Problem"

Where he attacks a teenager for his edit earlier this month that's being discussed above.[8]. See WP:MEAT. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

At about 43 minutes in he asks moderators to make sure that no one uses the echo comment in a racist way - he notes that YouTube is cracking down on this sort of thing, although he laments the lack of free speech. Doesn't seem to be happening: one comment by a visitor says "here are whole offices full of well paid (((people))) who "fight hate on the internet". What do you think those people actually do? Large part of this is editing Wikipedia. You can't fight these professional (((editors)))." (There's at least one more example). Doug Weller talk 11:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Doug, what does this have to do with the argument at hand? He is simply documenting the problems with the attitudes of some Wikipedia editors (not you of course) and bringing it to the attention of the public. Sure, there will always be one or two [redacted] in the comment section, but that shouldn't reflect poorly on him. Nate Hooper (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I watched a minute or two--did I hear him say that it's crazy that left-leaning editors are editing right-wing topics and vice versa? If that's what he thinks, his opinions on Wikipedia mean nothing at all. Also, Nate Hooper, if you make any more derogatory comments about, well, you know what I just cut here, I will be happy to block you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: and @Drmies: Are you aware that putting triple parentheses around someone's name is an anti-Semitic trope used to mark someone as being Jewish? It's been discussed on-Wiki a number of times. Jean-Francois Gariépy is implicitly saying that the "editors" he's complaining about controlling Wikipedia are Jews. This is, of course, merely an example writ small of the general anti-Semetic claim that Jews control ... the U.S., the world, banking, corporate business, etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

After watching some of that video, I went ahead and filed a WP:MEAT incident report on the three editors in question. Thanks for the astute work, Doug Weller. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Ewen Douglas has been blocked as a sock of Rockypedia, but the SPI case they filed is still open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the holocaust denial part 23 February 2019

On February 23rd, I have deleted the part stating: "In the past, Allsup has engaged in Holocaust denial, when during an episode of his Nationalist Review podcast, he made the comment, "It's been Syria where apparently Assad, 'he's gassing his own people. They're getting gassed, oh my God.' When, you know, that all turns out to be bullshit. You know, imagine that, somebody lying about people getting gassed."[44]. This segment is in violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research as the research has been made by the person who made the edit himself, who claims that he found an audio segment on a Kevin Logan video where James Allsup denies the holocaust. A review of the segment in question shows that James Allsup does not deny the holocaust in this YouTube video. Therefore the editor has done interpretative work which is not backed by the analysis of a secondary source. My removal of this section was undone by User:Ewen Douglas who failed to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and claimed that my editing must have been a bad faith one because I had not edited other articles in the past 7 years. I am back here to suggest deleting this unreliable claim and hear any argument to the contrary. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JF. Classifying that statement as Holocaust denial is a bad faith interpretation of what Allsup was actually saying. An honest analysis of the video would not assume any denial of the Holocaust took place. Nate Hooper (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not happy about editors suddenly appearing after long gaps to edit political articles. Sorry, but I doubt that that happens because it's been on their watchlist for years, it's usually a sign that they found out off-wiki. However, I agree that we shouldn't use this unless it's been reported in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"While a dispute is discussed, the article stays in the WP:STAUSQUO state" is the most recent edit by User:Beyond My Ken
Okay, well this is the discussion area, and even Doug (who appears to be Left leaning) "agrees that we shouldn't use this." So there seems to be a consensus against you from the talk page at the moment. Also, I'm not sure why we even need a discussion for something that is clearly a violation of editorial standards, but I'm willing to put all that aside and give you a day to make a counter argument before we change it back.
My reasoning is that the burden of proof is on those who wish to attribute motive. Furthermore, the claims that he denied the Holocaust are not found in the cited video, nor are they backed up by secondary sources. Thirdly, the claim that JF is "editing in bad faith since he hasn't edited another article in the past 7 years" will not work on me since I have edited many articles in recent times. So even if Ewen's characterization of him is true (which it isn't) an other argument / excuse will need to be found in my case, since I agree with his revision. Nate Hooper (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
...and even Doug (who appears to be left-leaning)... Oh, is that how we're doing it now? Are we all going to declare our political positions so that other editors can judge whether to keep our contributions or not based on our ideologies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken, I was not dismissing other's arguments nor basing any of my arguments on that classification (because it is my subjective opinion of him). I was merely pointing out the fact that he appears to be Left leaning (and it's possible I may be wrong), which, if true, means that he has shown principle and accepted our arguments in spite of his opinions. If I am incorrect about him then that's fine; just consider it like an illustration - "The parable of the Wikipedia editor who accepted arguments on the basis of logic rather than ideology or mind-reading." That aside, do you have any arguments for James being a holocaust denier? Nate Hooper (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"James"?! Do you know Allsup? 'Cause it sure sounds like you do. If you have a conflict of interest in relation to Allsup, you need to make that clear. If you don't, please bear in mind that we are an encyclopedia, we don't refer to article subjects by their first names, either in our articles or in our discussions about the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with Nate Hooper, this edit should not have needed a discussion as it is a simple removal of a clear violation of editorial standards. Multiple users have been violating Wikipedia standards in order to maintain a completely defamatory sentence in a biography of a living person. I support the proposition of Nate to remove the sentence if we don't see any good arguments within a day. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't evaluate your opinion until I know what your ideology is -- are you "far-right", "right", "right-leaning", dead center, "left-leaning", "left" or "far-left". Once I know your position, I can judge whether your opinion is of any value or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ken, I was the one that made the assumption that Doug was Left wing, not JF. Please don't use your quarrel with me to dismiss things that JF is saying. Nate Hooper (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The sources are very weak for this particular detail... but on what grounds, exactly, is this being contested? The content should remain out of the article, because it is not supported by a reliable source. So with that said... he has appeared on a podcast called "the Daily Shoah" and shared memes positively comparing migrant children in cages to the Holocaust.[9] He is a member of Identity Evropa, an explicitly anti-Semitic group which likes to chant "Jews will not replace us". It's silly to look at the mountain of sources which link him to neo-Nazi ideology and white supremacism, and then start pearl-clutching over how Holocaust denial is technically unreliable. The heart of Holocaust denial is loudly asking ignorant questions while ignoring answers, and plausible deniability, and Allsup's actions, as supported by sources, align with these tactics. BLP and AGF do not mean we have to play stupid to this childish crap. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on a review of the arguments after 24 hours, I hereby maintain my position and I ask User:Nate Hooper to redo my edit unless valid arguments have been made by the time I wake up 8 hours from now. An agreement was reached that the terms Holocaust Denial are unsupported for the segment cited. Nate Hooper agrees. Beyond My Ken thinks we should move forward with deletion if sources aren't found and sources were not found. He notes that political position should not matter in a determination of a violation of editorial standards, which I agree with and which is not in question here. Grayfell agrees in that he recognizes the weakness of the sources on the holocaust denial issue. He emphasizes on a subjective interpretation of the terms Holocaust denial, in which subjective considerations coming from his heart could weight the balance in favor of some other perspectives, but hopefully we can agree that the definition to be used is that of Wikipedia (especially when a link to the article is being given), a definition according to which "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." Holocaust denial. Lots of emotions have been expressed in this discussion by many parties, but the Wikipedia editorial standards must prevail. I'm asking Nate Hooper to complete the redo of my initial revision which was in-line with Wikipedia standards and is agreed upon unanimously based on this discussion. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Jean-Francois Gariepy, If he fails to bring forward a valid argument against our points in 8 hours time, it shall be done, m'Lord! Nate Hooper (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

:::: I just noticed, this Nate Hooper account has also seen a flurry activity on this article, after long periods of inactivity. Normally this would not raise my eyebrows, but in the context of Doug Weller's observations in the section below, and my own points in the next section after that, I believe it justifies a closer look. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ewen, you can have as much time having a "closer look" look as you like, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have to alleviate any of your concerns about my credibility. But in the mean time, I'm removing the segment (see below)
  • *Checks watch. It seems that no proof has been provided for Allsup being a holocaust denier in the time provided. Therefore, in my judgement, this discussion has been resolved in favour of JF and the segment's removal Nate Hooper (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know who marked this as resolved, but it doesn't seem to be revolved. A few things for your attention, from your local admin. a. Wikipedia regards "self-sourced" statements as problematic; we have good reasons to point to the need for secondary sources. b. I fully protected the article for a few days. c. Nate Hooper, I don't care how carefully you study your watch. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • His views on the Holocaust are obviously relevant, but we should find a better source for them. I would suggest replacing it with this, since it's highlighted in a reliable secondary source: On Facebook, James Allsup, a right-wing advocate, posted a photo comparing migrant children at the border to Jewish people behind a fence during the Holocaust with the caption, “They present it like it’s a bad thing #BuildTheWall.” We should avoid providing any further interpretation, since the source doesn't (and I don't think it's necessary.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a comment about the holocaust, rather it is a comment about James Allsup's opposition to immigration and support for border walls. I would consider it original research to assume that he was commenting on the jews in the picture rather than the modern immigrants. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The source unambiguously says that he was comparing migrant children at the border to Jewish people behind a fence during the Holocaust, so unless you have a better source saying otherwise, that's the reading we have to go with. It seems to me to easily satisfy WP:DUE (since the source highlighted it); and we don't need to provide interpretation or analysis beyond what the source says. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I will add that as the article gets unlocked, it would be important to remove James Allsup from the category "American Holocaust Deniers" since we have concluded that there was no solid support to him being a holocaust denier. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The feedback from the reliable sources noticeboard is a near consensus in favour of JF. Therefore it is my pleasure to finally declare the case closed in favour of removing the segment. Also, I must speak out against what I perceive to have been the unfair treatment of JF, throughout this debate. A sockpuppet / meatpuppet investigation was opened against him without any evidence. This violates both rules for sock-puppet investigations Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Secondly, the reliable sources noticeboard was used to judge in what should have been an open and shut case. I believe that this was a last-ditch tactic used by a side which knew they were losing the battle of ideas. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia strives to find the truth (based on evidence), rather than promoting one's own beliefs (in spite of the evidence), yet that was not my impression throughout this debate. Nate Hooper (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Identity Evropa

Description needs to match main article, where I've just reverted a new editor. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove Far Right

Far-right is nothing more than a meaningless slander. Far-right compared to what ? What makes him far-right? I suggest we use "right wing". 2601:CA:8200:34A:8B8:F7AC:B0E6:CC9C (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please form a new consensus before changing the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you form a consensus Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As a seemingly brand new user to Wikipedia, and based on your username, I strongly suggest you try and edit less contentious areas first. Forming consensus requires quite a bit of understanding of Wikipedia policies and it is hard to do for new users. Try checking out our Wikipedia:Community portal and gain some practice editing first. The previous consensus discussion took a long time to form, is barely a year old, and would need a very good argument to over turn. Please check out the previous disucssion before trying to propose a new lead. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

James Allsup now lives in Spokane 98.146.128.83 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! James Allsup has strongly suggested his move to Spokane Valley, Washington in a few videos on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz-8nIzZbX4&t=321s Time Stamp 5:00 | James References fellow Spokanians relating to a Starbucks in the town. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQNB_rWM0E4 Time Stamp 0:00 | Video mentions him moving, as well as a P.O. Box in Spokane. (Also discusses a new job, which is a whole other talk in it's own.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUofUy45uJo Time stamp 14:00 | States he has finished moving, again referencing the previous Spokane P.O. box. HoadRog (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Strong suggested" is not a reliable source, especially coming from the subject, who could have any number of reasons to deliberately misstate where they live. Please read WP:Reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

I would like an addition to James Allsup's Occupation section to include his current Position at What's On Politics as the Editor At Large

He has also mentioned this change of occupation in this youtube video he uploaded. - HoadRog (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. funplussmart (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, the subject can have numerous reasons for misstating their current employment status. WP:Reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering you said "Again, the subject..." makes me think you didn't even read the provided links, What's on Politics has him listed as the editor at large. He has said he works there, yes, but so has What's on Politics. I don't think I can provide more proof than the literal employer that said so. But if you still value news outlets over employement statements, here is an article by the Digital Journal. HoadRog (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I endorse this change. It's obviously sourced enough. PrussianOwl (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Allsup/Archive_1&oldid=959912079"