Talk:Jack Posobiec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Posobiec article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Horribly Negative-Only Introductory
This article does not start off as a neutral viewpoint. This kind of information does not belong in the opening part. It sets a biased negative tone for the rest of the article, and people may stop reading the article after this part. I would suggest the entire 2nd and 3rd paragraph be moved down the article or put in some section about controversial information. I would do this myself but I'd like other opinions.
"Posobiec is known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, and has used white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory. Since 2017, he has denied being a white nationalist, and has "denounced hate groups and bigotry."
"He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring" ...etc
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Asherkobin (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Lead follows body. From the Manual of Style:
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
~2026-32351-0 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
NPOV issue
This edit is problematic. The cited source says, "It is of course important to state that many of those on the march were not neo-nazis or fascists, and were merely there to celebrate the independence of their country." Yet that is precisely what this edit deletes. So I restored the NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The description of the Shakespeare in the Park incident leaves something out.
The likeness of Trump in the production that particularly offended Posobiec's donor, himself and Laura Loomer was that of an orange-haired Trump likeness with dismembered head skewered upon a spear.
By avoiding mention of the gory image of Trump assassinated, the editors give readers the impression that this was just an innocent reading of a Shakespeare play disrupted by extremists. That this deceptive behavior is "locked in place" and can only be edited by "trusted" editors is especially concerning in light of more recent events.
I would suggest that the editorial high-ups should rectify this deceptive practice at once. ~2026-39228-66 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)