Talk:Peter Brimelow

Recent news story about Brimelow:

• Gerstein, Josh (10 January 2020). "Anti-immigration author sues NYT over 'white nationalist' label". POLITICO. Retrieved 12 January 2020.

Brimelow is suing the NYT for calling him a white nationalist, and specifically for linking to a SPLC profile which supports this description. Strangely, Brimelow isn't suing the SPLC, just the NYT, but still uses the suit as a platform for repeating the usual complaints about the SPLC. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

to add the (non-white) in front of immigration in the first paragraph, considering that Brimelow criticized the 1965 immigration act for choking off "immigration from northern and western Europe while selectively opening up US borders to an influx of minorities from Third World countries?" I honestly don't see it as disruptive when it is a true statement based off his stances in white supremacy. Billgogi (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because it's called "original research". Please read WP:OR and come back if you have further questions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if the white nationalist or white supremacist labels are warranted.

this is poorly cited and highly subjective, I believe it’s also not warranted to be the first descriptor - as a defining characteristic of Peter Brimelow’s career and achievement.

Brimelow fought against that label through lawsuits and though he lost, the conclusion essentially found no malice in accusing someone of being a racist or a white supremacist even if it’s untrue. The expanded anti-SLAPP laws allowed both the Fox News and New York Times to legally lie without being sued.

In VDARE Found. v. The N.Y. Times Co., NY Supreme Coury denied that calling Brimelow a “white nationalist” was done in malice, calling it at worst a “journalistic negligence” and that “the actual malice standard recognizes that falsehoods relating to public figures are inevitable in free debate.”

The court, in consideration of all evidence from both sides concluded that though there is no malice in calling him a white nationalist - it’s basically not illegal to lie.

Oldgreg100 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you really "wondering"?

The first sentence of the lead has 4 sources, so when you say "poorly cited and highly subjective", it's a little difficult to WP:AGF right off the bat. A look at your talk page and edit history make it extremely difficult. In short, you're going to have to explain exactly what you'd like the lead to say, and justify why you'd like to ignore reliable secondary sources that disagree with your take on Brimelow. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue is that Brimelow has been ´accused of white nationalism´ and that is not the same as actually ´being one´. But the article for some reason insists that he IS a white natiolnalist. It is a very serious label especially when the people and institutions (like the SLPC) using it merely disagree with Brimemlow´s immigration observations. I also believe we are being irresponsible and biased to label someone based on his own detractors´ opinions. Ann Coulter has posted on VDare (founded by Brimelow) and her Wikipedia page describes her as a conservative author. Not a white nationalist. I suggested the more objective approach (at least on the first line) ´is an English born American author and financial journalist.´ And yes, it should be mentioned that certain organizations have described him as white nationalist, label which he denies (as the rest of the article says) Cundebuff (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are of course correct in your perception, and it is a clear POV issue. Encyclopedia articles should invariably lead off with that which is indisputable (in this case. "Brilowe is an author and activist...") and THEN dive into the pejoratives and categorizations in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Because we follow the sources in coverage does not mean we should follow them in style, which, when it comes to politics, is geared not towards education their readers per se, but is often pandering to their readers' political leanings and desire to be entertained. News sources have different missions than encyclopedias, and encyclopedias have traditionally been written using different writing styles, but with Wikipedia political articles, that is fast becoming not the case. It is a systemic issue with Wikipedia and I'm not sure anything really can be done about it in the short term... true old-school encyclopedia-style writing is in danger of becoming a lost art. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah, we should probably ignore reliable secondary sources and instead, pander to identitarians and ethno-nationalists that want to make their spokespeople more marketable to the masses. /sarcasm Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We didn't say that. We are asking for objectivity and no emotions nor personal political preferences. Something you would expect in an encyclopedia. No need for sarcasm in a serious discussion by the way. Cundebuff (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Objectivity is determined by reliable sources. If you want this to be a serious discussion, you've gotten off to a bad start. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and picking-and-choosing which parts of sources belong and which are pejorative based on your own preference undermines your argument, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used a reliable source for the statement ´is an author, financial journalist and anti-immigation activitst´. You still undid it with no justification. I also edited that Warrington is part of Cheshire and not Lancashire anymore. It seems that you do not even read before you edit stuff, to put it mildly. Cundebuff (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citing one reliable source while ignoring both the context of that source and also multiple other sources in the article is a form of selective editorializing. As I said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations.

Infoboxes list where people were born at that time of the person's birth. As an arbitrary example from another Wikipedia article, Erich Honecker was born in the Kingdom of Prussia. Likewise, in 1947 Peter Brimelow was born in Warrington, Lancashire. Grayfell (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree on the birthplace but someone left a tag that was confusing about it being part of another county.

I didn't ignore the other sources. I kept them. I just included author, financial journalist and activist. Oh and his self-identification as a paleoconservative.

You are the one doing selective editorializing to impose your perspective. Cundebuff (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"his self-identification as a paleoconservative" is next to irrelevant when there are multiple high-quality sources identifying who he is and why he is notable. I could self-identify as a peanut but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the lead of my article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is your opinion. Self-identification is very relevant for an article because it is informative to the readers and because it is a legitimate uncontentional political label (unlike the very polarizing and ambiguous white supremacist label). And I only included the self'-identification because is it direclty related to the white supremacist label (that one you really insist on being in the very first line of the lead)

My edition for the first line was: Peter Brimelow is an author, financial journalist and anti-immigration activist. (paleoconservative as well as white supremacist were contained in the second line)

So please do not exaggerate. And referring to one of your previous replies. Wikipedia is not concerned on the marketability of any person (as you clearly claimed to be). We are here to write in a Neutral Point of View. Cundebuff (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we just went off of proportion of what reliable sources say, we would not include birth dates or pronunciations in the first sentence of articles. Despite your protestation, I am not advocating "ignoring" anything, but instead a proponent of placing facts in their proper order in the lead of an article of an encyclopedia. I am advocating a return to true encyclopedic style for hyper-partisan articles such as this, no matter how deserving our readers are to be truly shown the dastardly nature of the subject of the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you opine that this is a "hyper-partisan" article, in your words? Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is tagged as a contentious topic by Wikipedia (I learned about his yersterday). Might also be because immigration is a big issue during US election election times. Cundebuff (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in my initial comment, contrary to how most Wikipedia articles are written, this one is poorly cited and highly is subjective. It uses “white supremacy” or “white nationalism” in a tagline within first 2 sentences to label the subject as such and portray it as one of the essential characteristics of the subject (when the claim is highly disputed and controversial)

As I mentioned, it’s not warranted nor is it consistent with other bio articles to have subjective criticism listed as one of the first descriptors - a defining characteristic of Peter Brimelow’s career and achievement. It would be something to put in a “criticism” sub section.

An equivalent of this would have been a bio article of Mike Tyson - with first descriptors being - “an American convicted rapist” instead of a former heavyweight boxing champion, podcaster, etc.

does it makes sense ? Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Makes a lot of sense. It´s like saying: Donald Trump is an American mysoginist racist president. You will find reliable sources that will use those labels on him. Cundebuff (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

do we consider SPLC a reliable source? By Wikipedia’s own standards SPLC is far from reliable or politically neutral Oldgreg100 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I personally do not consider SLPC a reliable source, either. Whenever I´ve read their content, I found them biased, exaggerated and irresponsible in their assertions. Sadly, no one has explained why. Cundebuff (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What you personally believe has no bearing on the current policy regarding WP:SPLC. You have two options: (1) Go to WT:RSP and suggest a re-evaluation of SPLC, or (2) start your own online encyclopedia where you get to personally decide what does and does not constitute a reliable source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion. Will do number 1. Second suggestion is totally unneccessary and not even a suggestion but an intimidation (I want to help in this project so how stupid it is to leave or "suggest" someone who wants to contribute to leave) but Im glad you havent dropped your authoritarian sarcastic style when someone replies something you disagree with (you just cannot help yourself) so more and more users and readers open their eyes about your personal intentions and motivations.

You are nobody to tell or suggest someone who is helping on this project to leave. May be you should start your online encyclopedia where you get to personally decide who and who isn´t editing and what and what isn´t to be published. Cundebuff (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not tell you or suggest that you leave. The second option has, in fact, been taken by various groups and/or individuals, such as the cases of Conservapedia or Metapedia. Thank you for your concern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why would I go to Conservapedia if there is Wikipedia? Now you are assuming I am a conservative. Not interested in that. Are you implying Wikipedia is just for liberals? You see what you are doing again? Your personal biases and preferences showing (you cannot help yourself) If someone disagrees with your personal writing style it does not mean that user is a conservative. Wikipedia isn´t a liberal encyclopedia. We have the Neutrality Point of View.

You assume stuff about users, you reply to serious questions with sarcasm and now you imply that conservative users would much rather leave Wikipedia.

Just for you to know. Peter Brimelow is not really relevant for a conservative. He is very relevant because his book on immigration Alien Nation influenced the 2015 writings of Ann Coulter that was speculated to have been very influential in the immigration conversation in 2016 Trump campaign. Thus, this topic is of global interest as the US is definitely a relevant nation in the world and there are migrant crisis going on simultaneously at least in three continents. Cundebuff (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cundebuff: "biased" and "reliable" are mutually exclusive terms. You seem to be conflating the two to have similar meanings. Just because a source is biased does not mean they are not a reliable source. As Fred pointed out, refer to WP:RSP for a list of sources that have been discussed here as to their reliability. As far as SPLC is concerned, you'll find that the community finds them to be reliable, but also to be biased. When dealing with bias from a source, what we generally do is request that the information be attributed to the source, especially when dealing with statements that are opinion rather than fact, or are contentious labels. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree 100%. Thanks for explaining stuff seriously. Cundebuff (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to reach consensus on the article? That the lead will also include that Brimelow is a financial journalist and activist. Cundebuff (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sources support the characterization of him as "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". There are sufficient WP:Reliable sources cited to establish this as required by WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. but to include he is a financial journalist and activist as well. There are sufficient sources for it as well Cundebuff (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"There are sufficient sources for it as well" - so, I figured, sure, I'll look. I found one reliable source calling him a "financial journalist" - from 2006. I think the weight of how reliable sources since then have described him overwhelmingly supports the current lead. If your opinion differs, fine. But to change the lead, you'll need to establish consensus first. Here. Personally, I'm done with this particular section of the talk page, as my opinion has been made very clear. Have a good day. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peter Brimelow is not a "white supremacist." This description is totally false and should be eliminated. Only those immersed in the racist woke fantasy world will label him as such. No evidence is provided. To be against illegal immigration is not to be racist. Only those who label others as such deservedly should be called facists/communists themselves, who would gladly send those they disagree with to gas chambers. Noynoynoy (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: see WP:V and WP:RS]. Seems pretty well sourced. Cannolis (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources seem to fall under questionable to me Oldgreg100 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's wonderful. Unfortunately for you, "seem to fall under questionable to me" is not a basis for whitewashing articles about white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or the like. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I protected the article due to the edit warring. Please ask me or any admin to remove the protection when consensus is reached. I haven't examined the issue but I saw a claim of long-standing content. Assuming that is correct, anyone wanting a change needs an WP:RFC if others disagree with the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply