Talk:John Gibbs (government official)

CNN KFILE

• "Trump-backed House candidate has history of conspiratorial tweets and defended anti-Semitic Twitter account" Marquardtika (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  This merely reflects CNN's own biases. They are left-wing at best, and tehy make no effort to balance that. If you're interested in a "neutral point of view," as you claim, CNN is not a source to beciting. 96.255.95.37 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes at odds with sources

There have been some recent changes that are at odds with the sources, which I have reverted. For example, the source cited doesn't say that Gibbs' past fringe/conspiracy tweets were "controversial" - rather, the source describes them as "inflammatory and conspiratorial." We reflect what the reliable sources say, and we don't do original research. Neutrality^talk 15:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Repeat Deletion of "Far Right" - Far Right Stays Under Wiki Policy

I thought I would comment as I have not been involved in the delete/revert cycle, other editors who have been involved in the back and forth would find these comments useful.

There is no reason to remove "far right" under WP:BLP. While we have to use the highest standards of sourcing for a bio of a living person, multiple perennial sources describing Gibbs as "far right" satisfy this.

These frustrations go to a broader (not just wikipedia issue) of how "political compass" descriptions are not very useful ways to think about politics, because of how relative they are to a specific political environment in place and time, and how disconnected from a global sense of politics.

I'm sympathetic to the overall issue, but the nature of Wikipedia is building a collaborative encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and giving different perspectives that are supported by reliable sources their due weight.

So if you want to add balance here, find a reliable source that argues calling Gibbs "far right" is inappropriate and add it. But "far right" will get to stay.

JArthur1984 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur with the above. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Several outlets do not refer to John Gibbs as "far right"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-backed-congressional-candidate-john-gibbs-pulls-off-upset-victory-michigan

https://www.fox17online.com/news/election-2022/peter-meijer-concedes-john-gibbs-declares-victory-in-gop-3rd-congressional-district-primary-race

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/08/03/michigan-3rd-congressional-district-results-john-gibbs-peter-meijer/10201653002/

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/08/trump-backed-john-gibbs-defeats-congressman-peter-meijer-who-voted-for-impeachment.html

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/02/john-gibbs-peter-meijer-michigan-gop-race-3rd-congressional-district/10185446002/

None of the outlets that refer to Gibbs as far right give a clear reason for it. At least other candidates/politicians with the far-right label have a pretty strong media consensus for the use of that term and several controversies, and I think we shouldn't be so quick to put such a label on someone. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This article talk page is not the place to cast aspersions on other editors or deal with content on other pages. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur with the above. I think the term "far-right" is currently being used on Wikipedia as a weapon against candidates its editors don't like. We can see this because the counterpart term "far-left" is absent from the pages of all Squad members, even though they reasonably could be called "far-left." TheEfficientMan (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So to tie the comments to a specific Wikipedia policy, the idea is that calling him far right creates a WP:Undue issue? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess so. Just don't think there's really enough info on this guy to definitively say he's "far-right", and that we should be using more than some articles that use the labels without any further detail. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is noted to not be reliable for politics, and the rest of these are just regional sources. It’s evidently outweighed by the amount of perennial reliable sources stating that Gibbs IS far-right. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That all sounds good, but are there any objections to changing the first sentence to "John Gibbs is an American far-right political commentator, Republican politician and conspiracy theorist"? It seems like the political party is a bit buried in the lede and this would be more clear. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the need to put the political party in early. I'm opposed to "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, per WP:LEAD and WP:BLP. I think it his advocacy fringe claims are well-handled in the body of the article however. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

+1. The "conspiracy theorist" label is from biased media CNN.

CNN is rated by the community votes on AllSides as Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias Unbiasedpol (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

As an aside from the conspiracy theory thing, the listing of a website at another website not matter. We go off what Wikipedia editor’s consensus is, not some other site’s appraisal. And on Wikipedia, CNN is listed as reliable by the WP:RSP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ser! is correct about the editorial consensus. @Unbiasedpol, I want to add that while CNN is pitched to a liberal audience (and all media has some form of ideology baked in), what we need to go by is to use sources that are viewed as reliable (see Wikipedia's consensus view of Reliable Sources/Perennial sources for frequently used sources) and avoid deprecated sources.

On the point Ser! raised with @MisterWat3rm3l0n regarding Fox being not reliable for non-politics, this doesn't mean Fox can't be used for claims on politics. Instead it means there's no specific consensus for reputability on Fox and politics, so Fox has to be cited with caution and should probably be avoided for contentious claims. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

OK here are the problems:

1. Who are the "Editors" who made that consensus? The Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources page made no definition of who the editors are. Are editors potentially anyone who edits Wikipedia, or a group of "moderators" who have a final say? It is not made clear on that page, therefore the criteria to make that "consensus" is blurry.

2. The Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources page can be edited by anyone. It's not reliable by default.

3. The page treats Democrat-leaning CNN and MSNBC reliable as a whole, but deliberately separates a conservative-leaning source Fox News into Non-political/Political/Talk Show. How come CNN/MSNBC/Fox News are treated unequally?

4. Where is the Wikipedia policy that requires all to use the Reliable Sources project as the source of truth?

5. Here John Gibbs is labeled far-right and "conspiracy theorist" because some of the "reliable sources" said so, but other "reliable sources", such as AP and WSJ, do not label him such in their factual reportings. So why aren't AP and WSJ taken into account? The fact that not all the "reliable resources" have a consensus on whether Gibbs is far-right or a conspiracy theoriest makes this article untruthful.

6. "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are labels that should be considered as opinion, not facts. A "reliable source" should mean it is reliable on facts, on what Gibbs' career, past contributions and controversies, rather than a blurry label. It's ok to say X/Y/Z media consider Gibbs as far-right, but "Gibbs is a far-right politician" is not a fact. Unbiasedpol (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You are the editors. Everyone is an editor.

These questions of upgrading or downgrading or deprecating sources are handled via a request for comment. There is one currently for Fox News, and you should absolutely go to this Request for Comment and weigh in.

Fox is treated differently because the consensus among Wikipedia editors is it is not always reliable for matters of politics and must therefore be used with caution. You can follow the link above and see the arguments by various editors as to why they individually believe that.

I don't know if it's true that these other sources aren't taken into account. There are many sources describing Gibbs as far right. Some sources are silent on whether or not he's far right. Read WP:Undue, and structure your discussion of your position around that, citing sources.

Remember that this page no longer calls Gibbs a conspiracy theorist. I have taken that out. I might have even taken it out twice. I would disagree with anyone who wants it back in the lead. This article discusses his spreading of various conspiracy theories, but that's handled correctly.

Overall, my suggestion is to participate in the discussion at the Fox news request for comment, spend time looking at the wikipedia policies so you can get a sense of the potential issues so you know what edits will stick, and which may be objectionable, and how to structure your edits to make them less likely to be objectionable.

And welcome! I hope you edit more pages and continue to stick around. It can be frustrating to be convinced that your position is correct but finding it reverted anyone. Any editor who has edited politics, media, and history issues has been in the same position, I am sure. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Who gets to decide what is the consensus?

The RFCs on CNN and MSNBC here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#RFC_on_CNN only lasted for a day, there was a lack of evidence to prove it was reliable or not, unlike the ongoing discussion to promote or demote Fox News.

Don't know who closed those RFCs, but clearly there will never be a consensus on the reliability of any of the partisan publications, therefore there will certainly never be a movement on the board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#How_to_improve_this_list. So why are right-wing publications generally treated as less reliable by default? The board has NO record showing how CNN got to be a reliable source in the first place. Unbiasedpol (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@MisterWat3rm3l0n: while I understand why you made the last edit there, Twitter generally shouldn't be used for claims like this per WP:ABOUTSELF, points 1 and to an extent 5. Also re including denials of claims, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies - "X is Y" does not need the qualifier "X denies being Y" because, well, he would, wouldn't he? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by 96.241.171.67

The Wikipedia link for the term “far right” explains that it typically refers to fascists and neo-Nazis. It’s use as a slightly ambiguous slur by publications like the New York Times doesn’t make it an accurate, viewpoint neutral term appropriate for a neutral article on Wikipedia.

I’m sure we could find many articles in right leaning publications calling Nancy Pelosi “crazy,” but that wouldn’t justify treating it as a factual description. Of course, a lawyerly argument can justify the term according to Wikipedia rules, but if you can’t see the common sense flaw there, your bias is showing.

At a minimum, this article should be edited to say something like “called far-right by the New York Times.” Or, how about: called “far-right” by the “left leaning New York Times.” Or “. . . by the far-left New York Times.”

For example, according to allsides.com’s page on the New York Times, “A plurality of respondents who self-reported a personal bias of Right rated The New York Times as far Left.”

You could say “called far right by critics.” Even putting “far right” in scare quotes would be a vast improvement. It indicates that the term is used in partisan way or from a partisan source.

It’s hardly a defense if no one has written an article disputing the “far right” smear of this particular politician. This kind of hyperbolic language is so ubiquitous, such an article would interest nobody.

Surely Wikipedia must have some mechanism to prevent common, politically exaggerated, language in the press, on both sides, from turning into “facts” in Wikipedia’s articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.171.67 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a dreadful policy as these sorts of characterizations are useless, but it's fair game. For this reason, I do not insert these sorts of things into articles, but I also get bogged down trying to delete them.

Also when you leave comments in the future, try to put them under the relevant topic on the talk page. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, "I don't get bogged down trying to delete them" JArthur1984 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the page read: “John Gibbs is a American far-right political commentator, politician.[1][2][3][4][5] and conspiracy theorist.[6]“

I edited it to slightly reduce the political bias, as follows: “John Gibbs is an American political commentator and politician. The New York Times and other mainstream press label him as "far right" [1][2][3][4][5] and a conspiracy theorist.[6]”

It was reverted within a few minutes, including the original grammatical Errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.171.67 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You're correct on "conspiracy theorist" not belonging in the first sentence and I've now deleted it per WP:LEAD and WP:BLP. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Remove labeling of a politician from one-sided media bias.

This post cites biased media sources like CNN to call this politician a conspiracy theorist and the New York Times to call this politician a far-right politician.

CNN bias: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias NYT bias: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times

Since this politician is involved in an active political election, misrepresenting his political stance contributes to election misinformation, which violates Wikipedia's policy.

Unbiasedpol (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022 (2)

Please delete the title "far-right". It has contentions to Nazis and the KKK. This candidate is black and not racist. Bordertown45 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The far right comment needs to be removed. If it stays we need to classify every politicians as far right or far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFerrell007 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

birthday/birthplace

someone should add his birthdate because i can't find anything on his birthdate MrMemer223 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

so Gibbs isn't happy about his wikipedia article

https://twitter.com/votejohngibbs/status/1556657433044557824

do you think we should change the first sentence of the article? MrMemer223 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. We shouldn't bow to pressure from political candidates to camouflage their biographies to be more favourable to them. If Mr. Gibbs wants to stop being described as "far-right", dare I suggest he stop espousing far-right political positions and furthering far-right conspiracies? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Gibbs history of opposition to women voting or even working. Wikipedia doesn't permit these facts, and they are facts, on the Wikipedia page. See September 21, 2022 news feed on CNN. Today

The page needs to verify edited to update for historical opinions. 2600:100F:B107:6B98:B47B:BC2C:EA76:C566 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Black or not?

This article makes no mention about Gibbs's ethnicity. In order to be categorized, per WP:CATV and WP:EGRS, we need mentions in the article that Gibbs is Black, and they need to be cited to a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUE. Restoring edit. natemup (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Should "County Administrator" even be in the infobox?

Given that the county commissioners "fired" his predecessor and "appointed" Gibbs to the position, it sounds like 'County Administrator' isn't a political office, it's just a government job (like a city manager or school district superintendent), and should therefore not be included in the infobox as a political position. Derpytoucan (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing far-right from lead

The term-far right should be removed from the lead. This blatantly violates NPOV and moves the article from neutral to biased, especially when listed in the lead. The term "far-left" is rarely (if ever) used to describe any US politicians that commonly acknowledged as the furthest left in their views: Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. The talk pages for any of those 3 articles have extensive discussion why it's inappropriate to include the term far-left.

Regarding Gibbs, a small number of sources use the term "far-right", but plenty of other sources also just describe him as republican or conservative [1]Detroit Free Press, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bridge Michigan, and FOX 17 News.

The use of terms "far-right" or "far-left" is combative when describing living politicians. Such languages violates WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BLPSTYLE, which states "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

Clear language should be used to avoid WP:UNDUE.

There are plenty of reliable sources I listed above that clearly demonstrate that John Gibbs is not commonly described in as "far-right"

This term is contentious and loaded language. It should be removed from the lead since it violates several Wikipedia content policies.

24.236.158.2 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This issue gets brought up at places like WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN regularly, and the consensus has been that it's fine as long as they're described that way by high-tier, newspaper of record-type reliable sources. Right in the lead, we've got Reuters and The New York Times. Just glancing at Google, I also see that The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Bloomberg either describe Gibbs as "far-right" or lump him in with other Republicans with extremist views. I'm sure there are plenty more. That other sources don't call him far-right is irrelevant, as we can't use sources to support claims that they don't make. (Now, if they specifically said that Gibbs isn't far-right, you might be on to something.) Similarly, that other politicians aren't labelled is irrelevant, as not every politician's views are so extreme that they're widely mentioned by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I don't understand why there ever needs to be an policy adjective before the word "politician" (see my comment below). In fact, I randomly can't find any politican (other than this American politican and others that have been caught up in this issue.) It depresses me to write these names, but for some very extreme examples Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini and Kim Il Sung don't get any extra adjective. I can't grasp the idea that writing "John Gibbs is an American politician and political commentator" is somehow insufficient and not consistent with almost every other politician I can look up in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or anything else. Seaweed (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence at Mao Zedong says he was a military strategist, revolutionary, and founder of the People's Republic of China. Benito Mussolini says he was a dictator and led the National Fascist Party. Kim Il Sung says he was the founder of North Korea and Supreme Leader. No adjectives are necessary because these are blatant examples of their extremism. It would be redudant to say "Benito Mussolini was a fascist dictator who led the fascist National Fascist Party", right? If John Gibbs becomes more notable for, say, founding a movement, organization, or caucus that's widely described as far-right (or anything else), then it might make sense to rewrite the sentence. But until then, Gibbs is widely described as "far-right" because that's part of what's notable about him. (That's true of quite a few political appointees who campaigned for office after Trump left office.) If a Biden appointee subsequently campaigned on a platform of, I don't know, abolishing banks and private property and nationalizing every private industry, I'd expect them to be widely described as a "far-left politician" in reliable sources and then on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument at all. But to be honest, I don't want to participate with this discussion about John Gibbs any longer. Bye everyone. Seaweed (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your participation, Seaweed! Like you, I'm astonished that there are so many American politicians labeled as Far-right on Wikipedia, yet so few politicians labeled as Far-left. If Wikipedia editors genuinely wish to maintain NPOV, this practice will need to stop. Seems that some editors just get tired of arguing, like you and myself (who is relatively new to Wikipedia). 24.231.224.118 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with you. The WP and WSJ are both are high-tier, newspaper of record-type reliable sources and linked in the original discussion, both of which just call Gibbs as "Republican".

How about we change the lead to "John Gibbs is an American Republican politician and political commentator." ??? 24.231.224.118 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, we can't use sources to support claims that they don't make. That's original research. It would be like finding sources on Gibbs that don't mention his race or state and citing them for him not being Black or from Michigan.

Also, like many newer editors, it appears that you misunderstand WP:NPOV. NPOV means that we, as editors, need to neutrally and fairly summarize significant views from reliable sources. It does not mean that we need to maintain some kind of false balance, like labelling an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. In fact, not mentioning Gibbs being "far-right" when reliable sources have written about it at length would, in fact, violate NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The WP and WSJ sources call him Republican and only Republican. I don't see a need to call him far-right when just a few sources use that language. Gibbs is called a Republican much more often than called a "far-right" politician in general articles.

Can you offer input how describing Gibbs as "far-right" violates or doesn't violate WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BLPSTYLE? 24.231.224.118 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We are using language that's widely used in reliable sources. As I said, this gets brought up BLPN and NPOVN, and the consensus among experienced editors is that this is fine.

I mean, actually read those sources. While neither use the term "far-right", they do characterize Gibbs' position as extreme, even within the Republican party. The Washington Post mentions "nominating Gibbs over the more moderate Meijer" and The Wall Street Journal talks about Gibbs' connection to Trump, his election denial, and worries from "moderate Republicans". Woodroar (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't understand why the adjective "far right" or indeed any other political description would ever be put in front of the word "politician". As a random test, I just looked at the roughly 50 members of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Not a single biography contains any adjective before the word "politician" (other than party). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the first sentence is just to blandly introduce a person at the highest level. Any political policy description should come afterwards. I'm more familiar with British politician biographies and I've never seen any of them described in any other way either. Just "politician". I hate to mention Hitler, but even his biography just calls him an "Austrian-born German politician". Seaweed (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)