Talk:Rebel News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Claims of Pro-Israeli stance

Following on from the dispute at WP:ANI, I've taken the liberty to open a dispute case here for both Erkanaz and Hungarian Phrasebook to discuss their differences, and work towards a mutual consensus.

1. To editor Erkanaz: put forward your views, including sources. To editor Hungarian Phrasebook: you do the same procedure.
2. Between you both, compare at your evidences and find which has the common ground.
3. Then look at the points you disagree upon, and work towards a compromise ground.
4. And to conclude, implement the agreed version, once you are both happy and reached an outcome without engaging in further warring.

Now are you both able to conduct this simple dispute resolution process peacefully and civilly? Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Evidence and views from Erkanaz

Evidence and views from Hungarian Phrasebook

The dispute is simply that Erkanaz hasn't provided a source that states Rebel Media is unusual among alt-right media for having a pro-Israel stance. Sourcing by synthesis isn't acceptable (see WP:SYNTH). Arguing that it's right because we know it's right isn't sufficient either. The claim has to actually be explicitly supported by a source i.e. a source actually has to say what's in the paragraph Erkanaz wants to say. There may well be a source out there that says this but I haven't found it and none of the sources Erkanaz has presented say it either. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just added the {{Find}} template to the top of this talk page. It provides links to a variety of news outlets, that may assist in this search for sources. But I am glad that you have taken the first step to engage in a mutual discussion. Just remember to keep it calm and civil, even if things get heated. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from others

All I could find on a quick search was this from the media outlet themselves, which only validates them going on a "fact-finding mission". That does not endorse or portray any from of Pro-Israel or Pro-Anything for that matter. And I'm pretty sure using their own material to cite content on their own article would be self-publication to some degree. Following the guidance of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, discourages against self-publish sources. Then there is this content again from the same website that picks up on 10 things one of their reporters hated about Israel. So that doesn't exactly come across as being "pro". Those are just a few to look into, but not quite useful. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Right wing

The Rebel is a right-wing media outlet, and I have placed three reliable sources backing that up. If it had more recognition it would be described as "far right", but because I don't have sources stating "far right" I'm not putting that into the article. However, The Rebel promotes hardline nationalism, which is a far right ideology, and it should be described that way as soon as sources catch up to it. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable doubt that The rebel is "right-wing", nationalist, and for that matter Islamophobic (viz. https://www.vice.com/article/photos-from-the-rebels-anti-anti-islamaphobia-rally); these perspectives should be clearly identified in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There are equally plenty of sources that describe them as conservative. One shouldn't forget that it is a Canadian broadcaster, and the term conservative is more frequently used to describe what a lot of Europeans would define as right wing. Canadian sources I have seen prefer conservative, as is the same used to describe Ezra Levant. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Aspects of the article should be reconsidered as they currently do not read as a neutral point of view and is noticeably negative to Rebel Media. No source is given to the claim in the article that Rebel Media contributors are Holocaust deniers. Reasons for hiring Tommy Robinson not given in an objective way. An example being describing the English Defence League he previously led as anti-Muslim. In an interview dated 20/06/17 he describes his views as anti-Islam not anti-Muslim. Also an emphasis on a seemingly unrelated crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSwagasaurusRex (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree and partially disagree. The article doesn't describe RM contributors as Holocaust deniers; rather, it describes them as having defended Holocaust deniers, which is supported by the cited sources. However, I agree that the coverage of Robinson is pretty clearly non-neutral, as it cherry-picks the most negative content from his article. We should try to be consistent with the consensus language in the lead of that article, then perhaps add content that's particularly relevant to RM. Accordingly I'm "demoting" your article-level tag to an inline tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

Rebel is not far right. That is slander. Change 'far right' to conservative. 2607:FEA8:71F:FFFD:3CCB:2912:BD78:92AC (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please obtain consensus before making this change. There is a discussion directly above concerning this very issue; please consider participating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although...Classical Liberal

"...although Levant states that he is a classical liberal)..."

FYI to whoever wrote this parenthetical note in the main article, classical liberal means conservative.

Tcschenks (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It most definitely does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.151.24 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

tommy Robinson (activist) - pseudonym

This is a pseudonym, which is perplexing some people* who follow external citations to find articles about this person but with a different name. Shall we include his actual name before the pseudonym in the article for clarity? Edaham (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC) -*namely me - as I was trying to provide an alternative link for someone who removed a piece of info on him, also not realizing that it was correctly attributed

No--the linked article is titled Tommy Robinson, and it makes clear in the first sentence that it's a pseudonym. Including the pseudonym real name here would be a distraction and inconsistent with standard practice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply DrFleischman - to clarify, you mean including the real name here would be a distraction right? The pesudonym is the one currently used. Your advice is to use Tommy Robinson throughout our pages. Edaham (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice noted - thanks Edaham (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Address?

I'm not sure if having their address listed on wikipedia is a good thing. They don't have that address listed anywhere on their website and the only way to find it is to go digging through phone listings, so it's not really supposed to be public. Given the political divisiveness it may pose a safety concern for those working at that office and their neighbours. I saw a couple users already tried to remove it / put it back. Swil999 (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned but I always believed that if you don't want your business address to be public then don't put it in the Yellow Pages. Phone listings such as the online Yellow Pages, where Rebel News Network's address and phone number are listed are public. If they had a concern they could have easily gotten an unlisted number. Nixon Now (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Far-right modification

There have been three unsourced wp:idontlikeit alterations of the political designation of this publication today so far. The above talk page discussion has not been closed and therefore repeated attempts to alter this piece of info without consensus by gaming, tag teaming etc are not OK. I'm at my rv limit on this article today and am considering RfC and page protection at this juncture. Edaham (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Do your job and remove "far-right". It's unneccessary, innaccurate, and the NYT source doesn't call Rebel "far-right" anyway. You are causing everyone to be on edge and you're making yourself look horrible by aggressively defending partisan slander like this. You're not being impartial, as a mod is supposed to be, especially on this site. Apercuwanderer (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Apercuwanderer (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Apercuwanderer, please read Wikipedia:Civility - your personal comments directed at Edaham are not civil. As to your comment:

• You are flatly incorrect about the NYT cite. The NYT article directly refers to "the far-right news outlet The Rebel." Neutrality^talk 07:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• The NYT is not the only source to refer to Rebel this way; the same phrasing is used by Maclean's ("Canada’s Rebel is joining the global class of paranoid, far-right media") and The New Yorker ("the Rebel, a Canadian media outlet that specializes in far-right video commentary").

Neutrality^talk 07:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Apercuwanderer: don't worry, I didn't take your comments personally. As I mentioned on your talk page after you have been reverted, the recommended practice is to follow the wp:BRD editing cycle. Please discuss the sources on which you are basing your edit. These can include a comparison of the cited references with sources to which you have access, or simply an in depth discussion of the existing sources. During the course of this process, it is of course common to reveal one or two human traits, but don't take offense. There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say and Wikipedia supplies a number of routes to ensure available information is accurately included into the project. Edaham (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned that there's an ongoing effort to undermine the integrity of pages associated with the alt-right through distancing language. As has been noted, there has been next to no engagement on this page regarding the "far-right" label. It's poor form to assume Apercuwanderer is acting on bad faith, but it's pretty ironic to call edits partisan when your arguments boil down to "I don't like it". A good number of these accounts disputing the "far right" label have been blocked for sockpuppetry (Pareshy Taimur, Zhengarychen) and quite frankly i think it's pretty suspicious that *yet another* new account is so interested in this page.

Also, Rebel contributors are expressing sympathies for the men who participated in the Charlottesville rally. Those men have been acknowledged as wearing swastika pins on top of many participants being associated with the Klan. Saying the Rebel isn't far-right is blatantly disingenuous. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

when I said don't worry I didn't take your comments personally, exactly what part of that dialogue gave you the impression that I was assuming bad faith. At present I am waiting for a discussion of existing or proposed relevant sources to commence on this article's talk page. Please avoid using the talk page as a forum for speculations concerning your suspicions. Edaham (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Next to no engagement on this page regarding the 'far-right' label?" Really? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of "I don't like it" edits, can we please cite articles using facts and evidence in accordance with their claims, rather than simply appealing to "authoritative" ones that make unexplained claims and labels? As I stated in my previous attempted edit, the NYT article cited made absolutely no effort to justify labeling Rebel as "far-right". Neither has the just-mentioned MacClean's article. I've yet to have been shown or to have been referred to any article that explains with evidence how Rebel is "far-right", outside of using irrational guilt by association tactics.

The Rebel (who referred to its political opinions as "right of center") is run by pro-Israel Jews such as Ezra Levant and Eitan Gilboord. They have often featured openly progressive Muslim commentators like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, who are not fringe in any way (Raza is even a featured speaker and personality in their upcoming "Rebel Cruise"). Even their most controversial reporters like Gavin McInnes and Laura Loomer are not applicable. Gavin McInnes visited Israel a few months ago to provide on-the-scene reporting and free comedy shows to Israeli residents, and has openly stated his love of Israel and has on numerous occasions cleared up misunderstandings of his sarcastic jests about Jews (as a rhetorical device to emphasise his love of them and his disgust for anti-Israeli sentiment) (eg, https://youtube.com/watch?v=coLUIcGXBZ0), and both Levant and McInnes have referred to each other as friends and featured each other in their respective programs. Even the Rebel's activist, Laura Loomer, is openly Jewish, both ethnically and religiously, and has advocated against even white nationalists and called them "anti-Semitic". Thus, this is absurd and indeed VERY disingenuous to refer to this group of pro-Israeli Jews and allies of Jews as "far-right". It is nothing more than hysterical fear-mongering from a clearly leftist partisan activist perspective.

"Rebel contributors are expressing sympathies for the men who participated in the Charlottesville rally". Citation needed. And even if so, how does that make Rebel far-right? Just talking to a person and wanting them to be heard and not hung in the gallows without hearing them out automatically makes the listener to be supportive of their interviewee's opinions and statements? This is a flawed argument by association and is not based in evidence, but rather fear-mongering, hysterical slander.

"Those men have been acknowledged as wearing swastika pins on top of many participants being associated with the Klan." Who? And how does that make Rebel supportive of Nazis or the KKK, especially since Rebel commentator Gavin McInnes has even stated that he is openly anti-Nazi and doesn't allows self-proclaimed Nazis or Jew-haters into his fraternal organisation, "The Proud Boys"? Again, this is another example guilt by association, which does not belong in the principally ideologically-neutral Wikipedia.

Can we please just delete the "far-right" label from this page? It is, ironically, a prime example of an "I don't like it" sentiment, in this case against the Rebel. Why is it such an issue to refer to The Rebel as a "Canadian media website" rather than the partisan "Canadian far-right media website"? This would resolve all conflict and satisfy everyone who is not trying to insert partisan agendas in this page but only seeking facts and evidence. I genuinely do not understand the aggressive defence here for the "far-right" distinction when no label is necessary to define Rebel's politics, just as no label is necessary to define CNN's and NYT's arguably left-wing politics (the same CNN who has openly supported the far-left movement Black Lives Matter and propogated the objectively false "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" claim). Apercuwanderer (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Apercuwanderer, your whole argument above seems to rest on the assumption that "far right" is, or should be, a code word for antisemitism. Do you have any reliably-sourced evidence that this is what "far right" means in a Canadian context? It certainly isn't how I see the term preponderantly used in Canadian sources. The "proud boys" for example are far right regardless of their position against antisemitism.

As far as the "anti-labels" position goes, I think we have to return to why The Rebel is notable at all. According to reliable Canadian and international sources, the reason The Rebel is notable (and therefore relevant to the encyclopaedia) js because it occupies the far right wing of Canada's media landscape, and because of the hilarity controversial public actions that ensue. If it weren't far-right it wouldn't be the NYT or the WP (with or without political labels); it would be essentially nothing worthy of interest. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Apercuwanderer, if you think sole argument for including "far right" is, "I don't like it," then you clearly haven't read the rest of the discussion on this talk page. It's also clear that you haven't read this, this, or this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes made a video literally titled "10 Things I Hate About Jews" and went at length talking about how his visit to Israel made him more antisemitic. As others have stated, antisemitism and far-right politics are not mutually exclusive but it's still completely false to suggest McInnes isn't antisemitic or caught up in far-right politics, and suggesting that McInnes' token "Jew friend" disproves that is extremely disingenuous. Nor does Levant or Loomer being Jewish preclude them from being known as far-right media figures. In fact, Canada's far-right scene has seen the Toronto JDL cooperate and organize with Soldiers of Odin, a known neo-Nazi vigilante group, out of a shared interest in anti-Islam activism.

That all said, your last paragraph makes it pretty clear that you're arguing from a partisan perspective. Your only argument is that it's "partisan" to use the label, which itself is verifiable across many reliable sources (the use of which in citations is currently also being debated), not to mention pretty blatantly obvious to anyone familiar with its content and contributors. 76.68.48.217 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You can leave that above paragraph in if you want. I'm not re-reverting it, and it's mostly true, but there's some stuff in there which isn't in the article and isn't sourced. Apologies if I was being over cautious. Have to be careful on BLPs - talk pages included. Edaham (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm surprised there is still such a strong edit war going on over this label. Just pointing out a few things to both sides of the edit war:

• I'd encourage everyone to read WP:LABEL and understand the spirit of that policy.
• I just did some quick google news searches and found that the "far-right" label caught on in March or so (perhaps due to Gavin's video about Jews?).
• I'm surprised people have labelled the whole org as far-right, considering they employ people like Jay Fayza (classical liberal), Claire Lehmann (libertarian-ish?), etc. Likewise, it seems that Ezra is busy shedding all of the more controversial contributors : Faith, Gavin, Lauren, etc.... The far-right labelling of Rebel seems to me like it will be temporary.

I would suggest people follow WP:LABEL: Even if you can prove that 'far-right' is widely used (which is only the case in recent articles, so I'm not sure how much that counts), it's a contentious label and you ought to to follow WP:INTEXT. --Nanite (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am curious why you feel that the label 'far-right' for The Rebel is 'contentious', Nanite? This is literally The Rebel's niche in the Canadian media market, and is the label generally applied by all of the reliable sources that discuss The Rebel at all. All I see is a few sockpuppetsgood faith editors on Wikipedia that disagree with the application of the label, not anyone out in the wild.Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I can see what you're saying. To many people, the term far-right is a neutral-feeling term marking a point on the political spectrum. But I also know that for conservatives, getting labelled as 'far right' feels pretty much like being called Nazi baby killer. ;-) As you can see on the far-right page, it's not quite clear which one is the real meaning of "far-right". I think that vagueness is part of why people are getting tripped up.

To be honest I'm not sure how to draw the line on labels that only some people find to be value-laden. And I've been seeing this pop up so much recently, I got frustrated and just opened a general question on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Which_label_to_use.3F_An_eternal_problem. --- you may want to share your input.

(It is funny though, I have been doing a lot of research on alt-righters and it seems as a whole they despise Rebel, and they will despise them even more now that the "alt-lite" contributors Lauren, Faith, Gavin are gone.) --Nanite (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, my DNS won't find The Rebel at all, tonight; I am not sure what that means. Newimpartial (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My editing focuses on political conservatism, and the consensus across all of the articles I edit is that when some sources call an organization or individual right-wing (or conservative) and some call it far-right, we go with the more precise label, i.e. far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The flurry of coverage from reliable sources since Unite the White seems to have solidified the "far-right" label for The Rebel, anyway. But The Rebel's DNS still won't resolve for me today, all day. An outage? Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For the curious, the explanation for that phenomenon appears to be here [1] - I have not introduced this into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

right-wing / far-right

Rebel has been labelled 'right-wing' by the BBC, and 'far-right' by the New York Times. Both sources are highly reputable and thus both are included in the lede. VivaSlava (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The rebel is right-wing, the NYT "far-right" is an opinion. We must look at the views presented by Rebel and therefore they would fall right (especially since they deny being alt-right). This is being used by opinionated hacks to lump a right wing group with "far right/nazi" Nationalism or caring for your nation is not inherently far-right. The editor of this page is bias.

This article is very opinion based, it uses competing papers rather than link to the actual piece that Rebel has conducted, for an article that is allegedly representing the site it only cites Rebel articles 2-3 times. Instead this page is relaying on opinions and observations of other persons rather than linking to the actual information.

For example, stating that Rebel is "far-right" is based on the NYT and global news. But looking at the rebel themselves, just two months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kq0e5j5ZoQ.

This is opinion, wikipedia should be better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources like news articles, not primary sources like The Rebel itself. The BBC and the New York Times are both reliable sources. If you have other secondary sources that disagree, we're happy to discuss them here. agtx 14:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

135.23.244.37, you can ignore "primary source" claims -- there's no policy saying the Rebel's own statements should be suppressed, or that only secondary sources are allowed without taking WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV into account. However, if your proposal is to change 'far-right' to 'right', I'd find that's just replacing one opinion with another, it would be better to say nothing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Jack Posbiec, a journalist with the far-right news outlet The Rebel ..." This is the justification? Because someone at New York Times labels them "far-right" they are far right.

Right wing would technically include far-right would it not? the problem is the implication that (especially with the link to essentially "far-right" = facist/nazi) Are the Rebel advocating for facism? No. Are they advocating National socialism? No. Did some of their reports support Le Pen? Yes and she was a national socialist however supporting one politician in a two party race should not qualify as direct support for every idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been a persistent campaign of clearly ideologically motivated vandalism and disruptive edits oriented towards whitewashing articles of certain organizations consistently connected to and labelled as part of the far-right by mainstream sources ie. the Proud Boys, the Rebel, Breitbart, ect. I've seen everything from editors claiming to be a part of the Proud Boys to attempts to vandalize Huffington Post as "far-left" (a claim which I am certain would make a communist or anarchist laugh) in response to reverts. Some of the earlier edits I noticed were from accounts that have since been blocked as sockpuppets. These types of edits are blatantly made in bad faith and have no place on Wikipedia or elsewhere. 84.151.37.143 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.37.143 (talk)

Adding to that, the editor preceding myself (looking at their history) is just going around and making unsourced edits to fit their personal bias. This persistent vandalism is absurd. 184.151.37.143 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Newest IP editor went on a rant on their own talk page about how Wikipedia doesn't match their own ideological standards. Just more evidence that this whitewashing vandalism is ideologically motivated. 50.100.84.76 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So you claim that the rebel is far-right? Because in passing the NYT (a former newspaper) made a flippant remark that Le Pen is "far-right" therefore all associate with her are "far-right". You do realize this is an association fallacy. They claim that rebel media is far-right is made in bad faith by and ideological possessed person who will in the next sentence claim that far-right is authoritarianism (based on the hyperlink of far-right). I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you think that they are nazis, do they disgust you? Do they make your skin craw? Well my friend you are an authoritarian in training, disgust for a group gives rise to the need to exterminate.

The rebel on repeat occasions has denounced the white nationalism and the far-right, to which I have linked before. You bring up Huffpo and them being "far-left" oh do you mean how they defended antifa? Fun how I dont think Huffpo should be labeled as far left nor do I think they should be silenced for stupidity. But this ad ad hominem labeling and this guilt by association and this reliance on bias news sources prevent Wikipedia from being a place that values truth. Who is the person trying to silence people? "These types of edits are blatantly made in bad faith and have no place on Wikipedia or elsewhere". If you cant tell that the labeling the Rebel as far-right is partisan hackney, my friend you need to get out of your safe space.

Labeling Rebel as Far-right persons to discreet their opinions based on a false label. It is using a bunch of op-eds and parading them around as quasi-reporting. Originally Rebel was rightly labeled as Right wing I motion we move back to right wing and stop taking the advice of political hacks that wish to manipulate language. Newimpartial and 184.151.37.143 are acting in bad faith. I understand you may have a different view but to attempt to silence by ad hominem and straw-man is appalling

Either Rebel should be labeled as Right wing or there should be no label as it is too controversial and cannot be sufficiently proven (the sources used to justify this label are op-eds, maybe its just the scientist in my but I can't understand how you could use these references bias articles with a clean conscious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the current citations is an "op-ed", and both clearly include The Rebel among "far right" news outlets, as do many others. Perhaps try reading the sources again? Also, accusing me of acting in bad faith is completely unsupported and a violation of WP:AGF, a policy I have been observing strenuously in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Really Newimpartial, so those sources are not bias? Again, its a guilt by association fallacy could you try to look that up. They claim LePen is far-right and therefore because Former Rebel employee supported LePen that means that he is far-right and then that means all of the Rebel is far-right. Do you see how circular your logic is yet? If the New York Times came out tomorrow saying that You Newimpartial was far-right you would be by your own logic far right. No matter how much you try to claim it to be defamation as soon as the second place copies that story it is now the new history. You are acting in bad faith because it is clear to anyone that actually does research into their videos they are not white nationalist, they are not anti-Semitic and they do not support socialism. In bad faith because when you lump groups that are not far-right in with the far right you are closing the overtone window and pushing those people into the hands of the white nationalist and victimization.

Perhaps you can check your biases, look at this objectively and stop trying to play power games. You are acting in bad faith because you are not seeking the truth you are attempting to confirm your own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty well every Canadian news source that I can find lists them as "far-right". I personally think that it would be better to list them as "right-wing", to avoid demonizing the nearly million people who read the site, but our policy on verifying information would suggest that far-right is the more-supported (and thus correct) term to use. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are reading the actual sources, IP; certainly your "guilt by association" fallacy argument is original research. The New York Times - a paradigmatic "reputable source", refers to The Rebel directly as a "far-right news outlet" - that is not innuendo or assumption, but a simple declaration. If you want to make the argument that the New York Times is no longer to be considered a reliable source, the place to make that argument is on the RSN and not here, particularly not as an INVOLVED editor.

Furthermore, you cannot cite the WP article on "far right" as a shibboleth with which to beat this article into conformity - the "far right" article is supposed to reflect the way the term is used in reliable sources, such as the usage here for The Rebel and the usage of the term for many of The Rebel's contributors and former contributors as individuals. If the term is used to label these voices by reputable sources, then the "far right" article should reflect the actual range of use of the term; what seems to have actually happened is that some POINTey editors have "captured" the "far right" article and unduly restricted its scope. However that may be, it has no bearing on how this or other similar articles should be edited. WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS.

Your OR argument that WP referring to The Rebel as "far right" (because reputable sources do so) is "pushing people into the hands of white nationalists" is absurd and, more importantly, completely lacking in objectivity. Your assertion that I (presumably among the many other editors who have edited this article in line with the sources and against the SPAs) am "playing power games" or "acting in bad faith" shows a complete misunderstanding of (i) what we are doing, (ii) WP norms (q.v. WP:AGF) and (iii) specifically of what WP editors are expected to do - your constant call to review the original content of The Rebel (e.g. on YouTube) and to evaluate whether or not it is "far right" is a good example of OR, exactly what WP editors are not supposed to be doing. Maybe re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So opposing business that have hated them from the start are calling them far right to demonize them. Here is the coverage of the Sun News Network as it closed down. Do you notice how happy they are that the Sun news Network failed, is that impartial? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sun-news-network-shuts-down-1.2955853 http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sun-news-network-shuts-down-putting-200-out-of-work-after-four-year-run-for-fox-news-north https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02/20/why-the-demise-of-sun-news-network-may-be-a-preview-of-things-to-come.html https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/02/16/Death-of-Sun-News/

Funny how they weren't considered far-right when they were the Sun News Network. Yet they did not change their positions. It is inconsistency and holding places like the NYT and other left leaning and opposition as the gold standard of "truth" Inc.

Here are the articles that point out your shift in the media as Rebel became more popular and the Papers began to get more desperate to demonize. National Post: Conservative website http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-sun-news-host-ezra-levant-launching-his-own-conservative-website-following-networks-demise Huffpo: Conservative Website http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/19/ezra-levant-the-rebel_n_6712230.html Toronto Star: No mention of "far-right" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/17/why-federal-politicians-leave-the-definition-of-journalist-to-journalists.html Global and Mail: Right Wing http://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/11/16/globe-and-mail-publisher-joins-rebel-media-in-criticizing-cbc-digital-news/ I'll add more later It appears that your is based on selectively choosing your references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the WP article, IP, you will observe that the term "far right" was successfully introduced to the article only after the term became widely used in the media (especially after The Rebel's widely-discussed Charlottesville coverage). The use of the term in this article has generally followed the reliable sources, as it is supposed to do; discussion of The Rebel from 2016 and earlier would typically not use the term "far-right" because that is not generally how The Rebel was perceived at that time. But now it is, and this will not rapidly change: reputations are sticky. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The New york times a paradigmatic! I'm sorry it took me so long to respond I was laughing for 2 hours straight. So The New York Times is paradigmatic and has a great reputation? Shall we look into the New York Times history? Might I direct you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies, as it will have your favourite types of references. And this doesn't even include the Mattress Girl saga. https://www.minds.com/blog/view/752265160302796800. The New York Times is capable of good reporting. But Paradigmatic they are not, unless you believe in promoting false rape allegations.

The deceleration, as you referred to the NYT calling rebel media "far-right" is based on? As I pointed out before, it is based on association with LePen, which is a fallacy or it is strictly the opinion of the NYT reporter. I have provided source after source demonstrating that Rebel Media does not believe and has even denounced the far-right. I call this article an opt-ed because the article is laced with opinion. I ask again, where did they get the "declaration" that Rebel Media is far-right? It is an opinion based on the NYT perception of the Rebel media's reputation. Do you deny that the NYT is left leaning? If yes, this opinion is a bad source as it is bias. Do you understand yet?

Furthermore as per wikipedia WP:NEWSORG first sentence "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." funny that your sources do not fall into "trusted sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I say you are acting in bad faith, because you are taking a piece and ignoring the WP:NEWSORG, and taking the whole article as gospel. You need to work on critical thinking skills to deceiver fact from opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

For New York Times reporting as a paradigmatic reliable source, see this WP article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record>. I am not ignoring WP:NEWSORG; unlike you I am actually taking it seriously - both of the articles cited for the term "far right" in this article(out of the very large number available) are in fact "factual content" rather than "opinion" or "op-ed". I suggest that you learn the difference, which is often expressed in the labelling given by news outlets to the articles themselves. And you still have not managed to read the Le Pen piece correctly - what the article is citing is the bald labelling of The Rebel as "far right", and not anything to do with some supposed association with Le Pen. There is no requirement that sources be unbiased to be reliable; once again, if you have problems with the NYT as a source (as many sea lions do), please take that discussion to RSN.

You have not provided "source after source" demonstrating that Rebel Media is not far right. Find reliable sources saying that says that it is not far right (as opposed to sources from 2016 or earlier that simply use other labels) and that perspective will have to be included in the article. But instead you offer original research using primary sources in defense of your opinion that The Rebel isn't far right, which is both irrelevant and uncool. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial "If you look at the history of the WP article, IP, you will observe that the term "far right" was successfully introduced to the article only after the term became widely used in the media (especially after The Rebel's widely-discussed Charlottesville coverage".

So the NYT article that was many months before Charlottesville was based on Charlottesville... You might be able to see how I am having trouble following this circular logic. I have demonstrated the "paper of record" is in the business of false rape allegations but thats a okay?. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/sports/rape-allegation-against-athletes-is-roiling-duke.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/sports/911-calls-lead-the-police-to-dukes-lacrosse-team.html

Shall we just listen and believe to these allegations?

I didnt know that McLean's was primary source. How about Toronto Star and Huffpo, they are third party sources that state Rebel as being conservative. These are sources are they not?

"There is no requirement that sources be unbiased to be reliable". That says it all, drinking the koolaid mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." - WP:BIASED. That is not koolaid; it's an actual WP content guideline.

As far as your sealioning about false rape allegations, WP policy is quite clear that reliable news organisations are not required to be infallible, though they should issue retractions. The NYT qualifies, dawg, and the story cited here has neither been retracted nor is it controversial.

And as far as your reading comprehension problem is concerned, I said that the *article* was revised post-Charlottesville, not that the only *sources* for the term far-right were post-Charlottesville. Instead of assuming BF and imagining circular logic, why not try reading what is actually written.

Yes, you have pre-2017 sources that refer to The Rebel as "conservative". If you want to add that information to the article (if you somehow don't believe that perspective is represented), then you are free to do that. What you are not free to do is remove the reliably sourced term "far-right" because sources up to 2016 used other labels. Again, just not cool. Newimpartial (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

If an event occurs and third party sources refuse to cover it does it actually happen? According to Wikipedia no. Well I'm having a hard time finding the NYT article being "revised" as there is no mention of this on the article itself. I'm sure this is just a mistake on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the same for Maclean's article, there is no issue of correction or revision, and it is dated May rather than August. Weird... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It is almost as though when Jack P. joined the rebel (who has since left the Rebel) and his connections with pizza gate not Charlottesville. It appears like the NYT decided to run this story with "far-right" based on their disgust for Jack and the LePen group as they viewed them through their bias lens to be far-right (seems quite American concentric). Other articles, hopefully naively, took the NYT at face value and changed narrative. The NYT was a bad actor in this case as they used disgust to try to otherize Rebel Media by association with Jack. Please don't lie about these topics you might give people the wrong impression like you dont care about the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find it funny the Maclean's article is focusing on Jack Posobiec and taking quotes from him and that's considered an impartial source because you cant just listen to what they say you have to hear about it from your trusted ministry of truth. No wonder Wikipedia is not a trusted source. Also, Maclean's is another example of guilt by association, it asserts Jack is far-right and than lumps in Ezra, well played newspeak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I know, I know, WP:AGF and all that, but all I can see is: All Sea Lion, all the time. Has it occurred to you, IP, that reliable media like the NYT and MacLean's should only issue retractions when they're wrong? Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

But there is no correction either... (there is a correction on the New York Times piece but it is for a different aspect). You have just stated that they changed the "narrative" or reputation" after Charlottesville. If they changed that would mean they were wrong originally and had to update the story...

Essentially you have stated that in May NYT and other media either labeled Rebel as far-right or went back and corrected story, for an event that occurred in August. But they have not left a trail or remark for this correction. Therefore it is more likely the in May stated Rebel as far-right based on pure speculation and you are using Charlottesville (in which a reporter was let go for coverage on Charlottesville) to justify this bad reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be trolled, but the IP made reference to factual errors in NYT reporting, and I pointed out that one mark of reliable sources is that they correct inaccurate reporting. The IP then moves the goal posts all the way into another stadium, insisting that the use of terms like "far-right" or "conservative" should be corrected based on the news source's current evaluation of The Rebel. Bollocks.

The timeline I gave is that *this article* adopted the term "far-right" after Charlottesville, when it became preponderant in the coverage of The Rebel, even though *sources cited* in the article include previous uses of the term. None of this is speculation or anything out of the ordinary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"I know I shouldn't be trolled" Everything you disagree with eh?

I have stated the NYT have not issued corrections nor have they retracted incorrect stories that they (the NYT) have published; is that not a mark of a unreliable news source?

Yes it is because it is the manufacturing of a narrative that is based purely on speculation. Why was it not adopted in May? If that holy NYT tells thou that Rebel Media is "far-right" does thou not believe it? It is critical theory mate, you have your conclusion and you are looking for sources that fit the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT prints corrections. E.g., <https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/pageoneplus/corrections-november-22-2017.html>. I won't bother with the rest. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

... Read again I did not say dont issue corrections... I said they have not issued corrections on the stories that are false, not ever story. The have issued some corrections but they have not issued corrections on other stories. Critical theory really warps minds eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

They correct errors, but not accurate stories. Yawn.

By the way, what is this double-speak you are using about "critical theory"? Is that something like "cultural Marxism"? I don't get it, Sea lion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that Duke Lacross Team did rape that woman...? Yawn?

I'm going to just assume that I am not explaining it properly, so here goes.

We can agree that the sources are bias. We can agree that they can make mistakes. We can agree that some news organizations began labeling Rebel Media "far-right" in May, but the Wiki page was not changed until after Charlottesville. Charlottesville generated an emotional response A member of Rebel Media did an interview where it was viewed that she was too friendly with White nationalist, and was promptly let go from the company. We can agree that there can be factual statements and opinion statements within all reporting. We can agree that NYT and other media outlets would benefit from labeling the Rebel Media as "far-right" We can agree that Rebel Media has denied being "far-right" We can agree that Rebel Media does not support socialism, eugenics, anti-Semitic, nor violence as a means to an end. Rebel does support nationalism in the sense to hold boarders and have a vetting process (the same stance as Bill Clinton actually)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0. Therefore they would not be considered far-right on any political map.

It makes zero sense to consider Rebel Media "far-right" when it is factually incorrect.

My issue with your sources is it is based on emotional opinion of the writers. These "declarations" or statements are not stated in context with examples of Rebel Media promoting genocide, eugenics, anti-Semitic or violence. They are just off the cuff, opinions based on the perception or based on a desire to have a fiery title.

At this point you will say in "show me your references". Contrary to the fact that I have raised the issue that many news sources will not cover stories that do not fit their bias. The only logical course of action would be to revert back to "right-wing" to avoid emotional power games and witch-hunts. Unless you can provide sources that demonstrate that Rebel Media promotes national socialism or eugenics, anti-Semitic, or violence than you have not sufficiently proven your case. The burden of proof rest in the hands of the accuser and you have not sufficiently proven that rebel is far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Sea Lion, do you agree that it is "factually correct" to consider The Rebel as "far right"? Do you agree that, in the Canadian context, The Rebel is considered to represent the "far right" of the media landscape? Do you agree that "far right", in the Canadian context, has no particular relationship to socialism, eugenics, and anti-semitism? Because that is what I understand to be "factually correct", and I can back up my position with sources. What do you have, again? Oh, yeah. Original Research. And the allegation that NYT and Global News reporters base their reporting on their feelz, perceive The Rebel as their competition (really?) and refuse to cover stories against their bias (like the NYT did with "Hilary's emails" and the FBI investigation ... wait a minute ... that's not what they did at all). You don't believe in evidence, do you? ("But, muh narrative...")

Wikipedia bases all its articles, or is supposed to, on what reliable sources actually say, not on original research and deeply-felt opinion. I believe you made a wrong turn when you were looking for WordPress ... Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sea Lion? why are you calling me a Sea Lion, Mr. Panda? In order, No, No, No.

1st: It is not factually accurate, other than them denying it, see answer 2 and 3. 2nd In this article "far-right" is a higher link to the Far-right page "Far-right politics is a term used to describe politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics. So because it is being linked to Nazi-ism I does not matter if they are considered "far-right Canadian" because "far-right Canadian" would be classical liberal or conservative. Therefore the link and association is in bad faith. It would be acceptable if it was put that they are "Canadian far-right (classical Liberal)" 3rd Can you agree it is disingenuous to state that they are Canadian "far-right" when it links to an article about facism, nazism and authoritarianism as you clearly admit they are not fascist, Nazis or authoritarians. "no particular relationship to socialism, eugenics, and anti-semitism"

I am glad we are making some head way, as you agree the link to Far right Politics should be removed as it is in bad faith.

Do you always ad hominem when you are at a lose for words? Are you okay, should I let someone know your kinda going off a bit.

I get that you enjoy emotional flexing but chill Panda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that I am easily trolled, but I will confine this response to this link <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning> - not an ad hominem, merely an observation - and the simple point that the three key points in the lede of WP's "far right" article are nationalist, nativist, and authoritarian. Check, check, and check. Newimpartial (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide sources for claims that they are "extreme-nationalist", "nativity", and "authoritarian". Also please note that you mistakenly stated "nationalism" rather than what is actually in the Wiki page, "extreme-nationalism". Otherwise this is simply opinion.

Do, do you understand that ad hominems are character attacks, calling me a Sea Lion (for raising concern that many have raised in relation to this article) is acting in bad faith. That's not an argument, that's you acting like a partisan hack, I'm going to hope that this is just a mistake on your part.

IP, if you are not interested in adding reliably sourced content in the article, and are instead engaged only in ideological mudslinging, then you are simply WP:NOTHERE. Sea lioning would be a more vivid characterization of that attitude in your case - I would note that none of the previous questions about the term "far right" have produced the wide-ranging interventions you have made on this topic.

For my part, all of my contributions to the article have been reliably sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial yes I understand that you follow the and act out WP:NOTHERE. Come on you, recognize you have made unsubstantiated claims that the Rebel Media is "extreme-nationalist", "nativity", and "authoritarian". None of your sources back this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)P

I am removing the link on far-right that links as Newimpartial has not provide sources to back up his claim that they support "extreme-nationalist", "nativity", and "authoritarian". Now I am confused because Newimpartial agreed they were not "far-right", but "Canadian far-right". I adjusted the story accordingly, if you have sources that demonstrate that they are "extreme-nationalist", "nativity", and "authoritarian" I'd be more than happy to drop this edit. Assuming I am acting in bad faith, isn't that against Wikipedia policy? If you refuse to provide sources I will have to issue a warning for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

different IP editor here. Just want to put it on record that the anonymous editor i accused of edit-warring, vandalism and bad faith edits is the one currently engaged with New Impartial. The editor has spent days making up various excuses to whitewash pages with specific edits made to change the tone of the page being the result each time. Regardless of how much sea-lioning you do in the talk page, it's obvious what your intentions are and constitute a reason in itself to revert your edits. 76.68.48.254 (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that the use of the label "far right" need not require that characteristics associated with some far-right movements, such as National Socialism, be present in a specific case. The context of a specific political and media system determines the relevant perception of "far right".

None of that prevents The Rebel from being an "extreme nationalist" and "nativist" channel, which it is. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial: "The Rebel is considered to represent the "far right" of the media landscape? Do you agree that "far right", in the Canadian context, has no particular relationship to socialism, eugenics, and anti-semitism?" As per above, in good faith I suggested than that (based on your questions) they should be labeled as "Canadian far-right" and removed the link to far-right politics as that is representative of European far-right. As you have just stated Rebel Media and have not provided any links that state they support any far-right positions it is an unsubstantiated link. If that is your opinion that's totally fine, but please do not try to use your opinion to inform the Wikipedia page. Please provide sources that they support far-right opinions (as the far-right politics page is Europe-centric, focusing on far right ideologies like Nazism) or stop injecting your personal opinion on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop Sea lioning. The term "far right" is justified in the article by its use by reliable sources. You or I documenting exactly in what sense The Rebel is "far right" - the degree of eugenics or anti-semitism they have invoked, or counter-Jihad, or authoritarian nationalism, all of which are far right ideologies - would be original research and is irrelevant to the content of the article, as I would hope for you to understand by now.

Also, please stop confusing "socialism" and "National Socialism". It is irrelevant, but makes you seem like an idiot. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your personal attacks and assume you are just very emotional on this topic. I have asked for sources and context to justify the relation between Rebel Media and the wikipedia page "far-right Politics" you have refused to provide, change the parameters and brought up irrelevant points of discussion. If you would like to have a discussion with your opinions please take them elsewhere. You have yet again mentioned them to be in favour (at least partially) of the following; eugenics, anti-semitism, authoritarian, extreme nationalism. Can you please provide reference, I have not seen any articles, or any videos that support your claims and am rather disturbed by your allegations, I would be happy to change my mind if you provided these refs.

By the way, nationalism is not exclusively far right ideology, many liberals are nationalist, conservatives and even the soviets were rather nationalistic, are they all far-right?

When did i confuse socialism and national socialism? They are different in the social sense (one being nationalistic, the other being internationalistic), economically they are essentially the same (See Vampire Economy by Günter Reimann). The Nazi's were socialist, the just also had disgust for Jews (and other groups) and [they felt a sense of victim hood after the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. What actually leads to Right wing authoritarianism is disgust (disgust can also lead to left wing authoritarianism) https://static.squarespace.com/static/4ff4905c84aee104c1f4f2c2/t/5084d57ee4b066390d1616c9/1350882686625/Inbar%20Pizarro%20Iyer%20Haidt%20Disgust%20and%20Voting%20proofs.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641067/

Again if you have articles that point out them as being far-right based on belief than I would be happy to let things stand, but unfortunately you do not appear to have these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Once again you misunderstand WP policy - the sources using a term (in this case "far right") just need to be reliable, they don't need to explain their reasoning.

Also, I used the term "authoritarian nationalism", which is different from "nationalism" and which, I hope, does not require explanation in this case. My basis for this assessment is not relevant to WP and is, in fact, a NOTFORUM issue.

Finally, you have just illustrated your confusion about socialism and national socialism lol. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Again please read more carefully, I removed the hyperlink, not the term, the HYPERLINK. Are you still with me? As you and I both agree they are Canadian "far-right" and do not support the causes (or at-least you haven't provided sources that justify the HYPERLINK).

I am not arguing if you used the term or not, the hyperlink leads to "far-right politics" which explained as eugenics, anti-semitism, authoritarian, extreme nationalism. I would agree authoritarian nationalism would likely be very similar to extreme nationalism but I am using the wiki page as reference. So again please provide justification for this link.

Typical 'intellectual' "lol your point (while not providing any valid criticism) Next your going to tell me that the Nazis were not socialist. Please see NSDAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What part of HYPERLINK, exactly, do you feel mandates original research??

Also note that the WP article on Nazism doesn't describe it as socialist. Maybe you should take your issues over there. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The hyperlink leads to Far-right Politics that states: "Far-right politics is a term used to describe politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]". I have therefore asked for a source to substantiate the hyperlink as this hyper link connects Rebel Media to these positions.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), socialism is an economic policy routed in collectivism. Nazis were collectivist (just like socialist be it democratic socialist, Marxist, Communist, Leninist, Maoist or progressive), mate your not looking very well informed on this topic maybe you should drop it and provide sources. Please see WP Socialism under Mid-20th century Please see WP Nazism under Economics Please see WP Nazi party Nazis and Communist hated each other because they were fighting over the same voters, collectivist. Socialism as an economic model was used in Nazi Germany and the economic structure looked very similar to Soviet Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the original research, Sea Lion. But NOTFORUM. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay therefore I will be removing the link as it is unsubstantiated and requires further reference Monsieur Sea Lion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This IP editor arguing with Newimpartial is blatantly acting out of bad faith. It's pretty obvious that going by both their history of "contributions" as well as past patterns of vandalism making the same edit, just a glimpse into a broader pattern of vandalism targeting subjects related to the far right. As stated previously, it's blatantly obvious that you are sea-lioning and making disingenuous arguments, which only serves to clog this section with your dishonesty. 76.68.48.254 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

76.68.48.254 Are you implying that Newimpartial has conducted vandalism that's a bit harsh, I would go with bubbled? I made the edit originally as I figured it was just a mistake and took a quick glance at the talk page and noticed others had raised the same position, maybe a bit rash but hardly vandalism. I than did not do the same edit I removed the hyper link as it is unsubstantiated you can also add sources Monsieur Sea Lion to verify the hyperlink. As Newimpartial agreed, Rebel Media is "Canadian far right" and has yet to provide sources to demonstrate that they hold opinions as laid out on the "far right WP. I would be happy to look at any articles you have that point to Rebel as supporting extreme nationalist, nativist ideologies and as well as authoritarian tendencies. Otherwise please do not assume bad faith my child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another note: this IP editor is asking for original research to support cited content. It's pretty clear this person is only interested in whitewashing the page, a pattern that's been noted throughout this talk section and on other pages relating to far-right politics. 184.151.36.208 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note this IP editor has not read the sources. In the cited sources label Rebel Media as far-right, there is however no supporting link as to what type of far-right they are nor the believes of Rebel Media therefore this does not warranted linking to "far-right politics" as it has not been substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The alt-right label should be removed from this page. Especially, the link at the bottom of the page. There certainly is no consensus for this kind of mud slinging bias. 192.171.39.199 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As you have been told by Citobun, Wikipedia is not a means for people to carry out political advocacy. Given your participation in the pattern of disruptive political advocacy I have discussed for months, I nor anyone else on Wikipedia could not care less about YOUR OPINION on the matter. 76.68.48.254 (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)