DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Justin Barrett

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Justin Barrett political leaning.

[edit]

The description of Justin Barret political leaning as 'far right'is incorrect. The correct description is 'Conservative'. 78.19.10.250 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources refer to the subject as "far-right" (and indeed his party). For example, the Sunday Times (UK) refers to the subject as a "far-right leader". The current article text therefore reflects the reliable and verifiable sources. Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWITTER?

[edit]

Bastun, am I missing something in my readings of WP:TWITTER? It appears to say that Twitter can be used as a source of information by people about themselves. The poster here appears to be Mark Malone rather than Justin Barrett, so I don't think it's a reliable source in this case. If I'm missing something here do let me know but otherwise I don't think this is suitably sourced for inclusion. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're correct. I missed the "about themselves" bit in my hurry. I've reverted. But I do hope we can find a usable source for this! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and ditto. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the the latest Examiner article that mentions Barrett and saying what's in the photo that identifies him. I mean - it's Barrett, and he's wearing a replica Nazi SS greatcoat. I can see how WP:SYNTH might apply, as Ser! says, or possibly WP:OR - but also there's WP:SKYISBLUE. I'd say at this stage the Examiner is likely to be the only source that covers this (unless it's in one of the Sunday papers), and unfortunately a search for "Justin Barrett Nazi" returns this page and its mirrors, and a lot of results talking about Nazi gold :-) Worth a question on WP:RS/N? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bastun (talk · contribs) that the Examiner article with the photo is evidence enough. The photo is a source in and of itself, regardless of whether the Examiner explains the info or not. Xx78900 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh. Not sure about that one. If the article doesn’t state that he’s wearing this uniform, then we’re interpreting the articles ourselves and that surely falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. If it was verifiable I’d say they’d be reporting it, no? — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clann Éireann

[edit]

Recently, Justin Barrett started a political group (?) named Clann Éireann that seeks to be a secondary group to the National Party. Actually, a lot of this is just me guessing because it is unclear to me what the organization's purpose is. In the "launch speech" given on YouTube, Barrett claims that he will soon have full control over the National Party again but Clann Éireann will be the main focus. I'm not sure it's worth any addition to the article yet but it's worth looking out for. Additionally, it doesn't seem like there's a news article out there about it yet. 173.0.34.229 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not overly clear at the minute quite what it is nor how important it's gonna be. I'll be keeping a close eye. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits

[edit]

The latest edits were rolled back by Ser. With respect, I think the version I had made earlier today had edits which were relevant but which are not given the prominence deserved. Once a public figure moves into activities like outright Holocaust denial, I think that should be foregrounded in their wiki article. Would there be support for using a label like 'neo-Nazi' at this point, using a page like Richard B. Spencer as a precdent/example of this. Also with regards to Ser's question on who cares what James Reynolds thinks, I do think that condemnation was relevant as it indicates reasons underlying the split within the NP. Mikebarrett0 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I rolled back your edit, moreso copyedited and moved to a different part of the article to give it due weight. He absolutely is a Holocaust denier after this comment, I agree, but the lede summarises what someone is known for - in this case, Barrett is notable for being a far-right politician and anti-abortion activist, which are what reliable sources refer to him as in articles about him. (I've left conspiracy theorist in because some articles do call him this, so I'm willing to hear a case for calling him that in the lede.) Thing is, we can't really call him a neo-Nazi in the lede until reliable sources actually call him that like they've done for Spencer, given this is a WP:BLP and just saying "he's said Nazi shit, he is by this definition a neo-Nazi as opposed to any other type of Nazi" runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. I appreciate your reasoning for including what Reynolds has said, and I could perhaps see the need to include it in the relevant section about the party split, but having it in the lede feels like giving undue weight to an otherwise relatively unnotable person's viewpoints. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In honesty, I have to agree with @Ser! on the first sentence. And am also confused by the characterisation of the additions as being "rolled back". The added text (about holocaust denial and antisemitic statements) was not removed and remains in the lead. If perhaps not as the 8th/9th words in the first sentence. As noted, "far right" seems a reasonable short-hand for the first sentence. Adding every other/possible adjective or descriptor to the opening sentence seems a little overdone. And could lead to suggestions of WP:ATP/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi

[edit]

Can we get consenus on describing this person as a neo-Nazi? His social media activity is now almost exclusively talking about Hitler, Nazism, Jews, etc. (https://x.com/_PKMX/status/1821959905097425197). He is also doing podcasts with the Nordic Resistance Movement in which he denies the Holocaust, claims he read Mein Kampf at age 8 and was persuaded by it, talks about how he supports Hitler, opposes democracy, says he's turned against elections and is attempting to set up a shirted fascist movement, and so on (reported here: https://www.thephoenix.ie/article/justin-barrett-rides-on-nrm/). He is probably the most explicit neo-Nazi today outside of the US, yet his wikipedia article still reads in places like he's just a populist right-wing politician - it's absurd. Mikebarrett0 (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion, but we need better sourcing. Twitter is not a reliable source, especially when the tweets are a third party posting screenshots. And unfortunately, the Phoenix article doesn't explicitly state that Barrett is a neo-Nazi, just that he hangs around with them. That would imply WP:SYNTHESIS if we were to use it as the only reference. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm with Bastun on this one. My comment above on your last addition of the term to the lede stands; it needs to be sourced. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note Mikebarrett0 has restored added the neo-Nazi label to the lede, citing an article where he praises Hitler as the "greatest leader of all time". I don't doubt for a second that Barrett is a neo-Nazi, but the source does not call him one directly. My question is whether we'd take praise of Hitler as an immediate WP:SKYISBLUE to call him that, or just detail his sympathies throughout the article? Open to comment. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Amended per below comment, my bad. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, it wasn't a restoration as I hadn't previously edited the page to use that label and had it reverted - rather I started this discussion to find consensus before making the edit. But I believe this source and recent development makes it so blatantly obvious that to continue to not use this label, despite him actively praising Hitler and dressing up in fascist uniforms, makes the article so inaccurate as to be misleading. Mikebarrett0 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed the recent addition before noticing this thread was already open/reactivated. As noted by ser! (and per my own edit summary), the source doesn't refer to Barrett as a Neo-Nazi. And so, IMO, we can't really use it to support a claim that "he is a Neo-Nazi". Or even a qualified statement - that "some people call him a Neo-Nazi". As noted, and while he perhaps has all the outward trappings of a Neo-Nazi, in order to call him one we need a reliable source (or sources) which support that assertion. Otherwise we are reliant on SYNTH. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Wikipedian here (so forgive me if I'm breaking 101 rules), just clicking on this section of this page thinking there might be discussion of "far-right" versus "neo-Nazi", and lo! It's funny to me that there needs to be some sort of nominally respectable source that describes the subject of this article as being a neo-Nazi when he himself is, in the context of "far-right" politics, saying the quiet part out loud, i.e. publicly quoting and praising Hitler, attending racist rallies in SS garb, etc. Are we waiting for the Irish Times or something to call him a Nazi? I'm not sure Irish broadsheets will do that, for various complicated and less complicated reasons.
I'm fascinated by the political designations on this website and how they are arrived at. That sounds like a criticism of people who find the time to edit but it's not; I think the designations are bang on 90% of the time. In this case, I am just wondering "how Nazi" a person has to be to be designated as such. The Michael Rosen poem "I Sometimes Fear" is illustrative here, but Barrett actually fulfils the first stanza as well as the others! 194.125.20.53 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" (which isn't the right word) is that our policy that biographies of living people, especially anything controversial, must be accurately sourced to reliable, independent, third-party sources. So yes, we kinda do need The Irish Times or another significant source to call him that, or report that X person has called him a neo-Nazi. While you could argue that we are in WP:SKYISBLUE territory, the policy generally serves us well and the alternative would be... well, far less savoury. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The given source does not call him a neo-nazi, nazi or other term. That article just stated: Justin Barrett, the former leader of the far-right National Party, has declared Adolf Hitler to the “greatest leader of all time”. Flirting with Hitler does not make him a nazi. In my opinion, that label should not be used. The Banner talk 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His wife, Rebecca, is now identifying him as a "national socialist" and Justin retweeted the post that does so. In light of this, I am editing the article to describe him as a Neo-Nazi. Horarum (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no reasonable doubt that the source/Tweet originated from an account connected to the subject(s), then WP:ABOUTSELF would likely support its use. ("Self-published [..] sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim [..] There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and [..] The article is not based primarily on such sources.") Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The currently cited source for this label is https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/28733, which is listed as generally unreliable on WP:RSP. I have removed it for now. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the Phoenix Magazine (in the profile of Nick Delehanty, published 7 August 2025: "neo-Nazi Justin Barrett")is now referring to him as a neo-Nazi, which is a reputable source, I think it's time we move to adopt this label on his page.Mikebarrett0 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per MOS:ROLEBIO - 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:A983:5946:1CF7:7022 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. It's sourced, and given that source and Twitter, there would be appear to be WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not if someone reverts. And your views in general don't align with those of the other users if you look at the 2 previous RFCs. Maybe you might want to find another article to edit 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:3D7B:199:EE80:C4A2 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there is no consensus on the inclusion of the term. The sources supporting such an inclusion are in the minority and are scarce. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

[edit]

To the anon IP - Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory. "the “one type of people” associated with International Finance Capital" is a conspiracy theory. QED. Stop removing referenced content. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source that calls him a conspiracy theorist.2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:6C3F:4E1:6FFC:29FC (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you're one of these ... special types who won't lef off so I'm starting a RFC to get this over with.2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to remove the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor from the lead sentence. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should he be called a conspiracy theorist in the lead? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I could not find a single source referring to him as that.2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lede follows the body. Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory. "...the “one type of people” associated with International Finance Capital" is a conspiracy theory. Both are referenced in the Phoenix article used as a reference for the claim. There is also this and this and this and this. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Wikipedia article cites that article in The Phoenix to support calling him a "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence, but that cited article doesn't refer to him as a conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia readers should not be forced to infer for themselves something that is not stated in the cited sources, like "He believes X, and only conspiracy theorists believe that, and therefore he is a conspiracy theorist." If there are better sources to cite, then cite those other sources instead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then clarify it as "proponents of antisemitic conspiracy theories" or something, eh? Also I feel likw WP:SYNTH and MOS:LEADREL are concerns here. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There's a lot of whacko stuff he believes. You can read about some of it here https://the-beacon.ie/2020/01/31/in-the-mind-of-justin-barrett-ireland-will-be-saved-by-installing-a-catholic-dictatorship/ D1551D3N7 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would make him a "neo-nazi who believes a lot of whacko stuff", not a conspiracy theorist unless sources explicitly call him that. (again, I could not find a single source for that). I find it incredible that longtime editors aren't familiar with MOS:ROLEBIO, which says "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources." I only edit occasionally but I've seen people cite this policy tons of times 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:ACC2:1DCC:90E2:CD67 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Beacon article says he is "a proponent of conspiracy theories", and describes several. (I didn't check all the other links above in this discussion.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can write "The Beacon has referred to him as a 'proponent of conspiracy theories' "2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:58CA:804:547B:C7F3 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've had your !vote, anon-IP. No need to respond to every other participant. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to check the other three sources listed by Bastun. Rupture says he promotes the notion of "a liberal conspiracy". Rupture does not seem like a very reliable source. The Irish Times articles are paywalled. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per UNDUE and BLP and LABEL. Unless someone can produce multiple high-quality reliable sources that explicitly state he is a "conspiracy theorist", then no, that contentious label can not be included in the lead sentence. The Beacon article that says he is "a proponent of conspiracy theories", by itself is not enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did. There are five listed - The Beacon, Rupture.ie, two Irish Times articles, as well as the original Phoenix article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And none of them say he is a "conspiracy theorist", which is required for a contentious label. And the source in the lead failed verification, so why that BLPVIO is still in the lead is puzzling. BarrelProof, here are the two Irish Times articles archived, which you should be able to access, [1] and [2]. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first Irish Times source is referring to Barrett when it says However, candidates on the far right have gone much further, with a small number expressing admiration for Adolf Hitler and spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories borrowed from international far-right movements. The second IT source is referring to Barrett, Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters (columnist), and states Fanning demonstrates that there is little if any appetite for their increasingly conspiracy-laden views. There is also the Beacon article. When taken with The Phoenix article, where he is credited with spreading the Holocaust denial conspiracy theory, and the Rupture article (which is the magazine of a registered political party - so not neutral, but certainly not something that can be dismissed as "does not seem like a very reliable source"), that is more than enough to describe him as a conspiracy theorist. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Irish Times articles, like BarrelProof said above, the article doesn't refer to him as a conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia readers should not be forced to infer for themselves something that is not stated in the cited sources. The first Irish Times source only says "candidates", so our readers shouldn't be forced to infer that it is Barrett they are talking about. The second IT source can be used with attribution to Fanning, and I don't consider the remaining sources to be high-quality sources for a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what is The Beacon and how does it stack up as a verifiable source? Irishpolitical (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem very well known (e.g. it has no Wikipedia article about it) or neutral or active. Its website says it is "dedicated to anti-racist and anti-fascist principles". Of the five articles highlighted at the top of its home page, three of them are several years old. Scrolling down further on its home page, only two of them are from this year (the same two featured in the banner, I think; three are from 2024 and seven are from 2023). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would be better writing and closer to the sourcing provided above to just describe him as spreading conspiracy theories or describe the specific conspiracy theories, or something similar. --Tristario (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Cross searching "Justin Barrett" "conspiracy theorist" on Google shows nothing referring to him as a conspiracy theorist for the pages I checked. The first sentence should outline what makes him notable (per MOS:BIOFIRST), and it seems to me that he is not notable due to his conspiracy theories, but rather due to his political activities. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC (2)

[edit]

Should this be in the lead?:

"Previously charged with shoplifting, Barrett also has been before the courts for directing threatening language against members of An Garda Síochána, for public order offences outside a hospital, and for driving without a driving licence or car insurance."

61.8.152.71 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless I’m missing something this looks like WP:TRIVIA. There’s minimal coverage in the body so I don’t think it’s WP:DUE for the lead. It would also look pretty silly next to the more serious stuff Kowal2701 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - none of the crimes listed appear notable enough to be in the lead of BLP merely on basis of "charged" or "been before the courts". Reading the article, only 1999 protest appears to have resulted in conviction, but also there is some talk about appeals process and how in the end "no criminal conviction was recorded against him" there. If there is something criminal notable enough for the lead, then it needs to be written from the scratch, current version doesn't cut it.--Staberinde (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as the thread starter. Was inserted by a single-purpose account troll with a possible COI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikebarrett0 Why established users would enable this kind of behavior is beyond me61.8.155.182 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a suggestion, to be taken seriously in discussions and making allegations on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend creating an account, so you're no longer an IP address, as IP addresses in general are notorious for being sockpuppets. Regardless, thank you for a thoughtful debate. Penguino35 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for simplicity's sake, because a lead, especially for a WP:BLP, should reflect what makes the subject notable and generally summarize the body of the article, while not being intentionally inflammatory. I'll reference MOS:BLPLEAD for everyone's convenience: "The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article."
I agree that the current rendition reads more like trivia. That being said, I echo Bastun and Guliolopez who make a good case for some of the elements being in the lead or keeping the point very generic, but it would need a proper rewrite to be both WP:DUE and WP:NOTABLE. Penguino35 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because, I actually couldn't find a "threatening language" incident in this Irish Examiner source, which I thought could be the only notable item for a lede. The 2021 source just says "was also accused of engaging in threatening and abusive behaviour" & that's not lede material for Wiki purposes. I don't think the proposed sentence can be added to the lede, as written, partly because the shoplifting & driving violations would likely be considered small potatoes. The 1999 hospital disturbance may not be notable enough specifically for a lede, yet there could be a general lede statement that his past activism methods were considered controversial and unduly disruptive. Sorry, maybe I'm missing some pertinent information. Hammelsmith (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC (3)

[edit]

Should he be called "Neo-Nazi" in the lead? 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:3D7B:199:EE80:C4A2 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not seeing it in the source. It's about half-way down in this article. Beyond the paywall yoke. I've added the relevant text to the "quote" param (to aid in WP:VER). But, to confirm, the source expressly refers to "a large anti-immigrant protest in Dublin, which was attended by presidency rival Conor McGregor and neo-Nazi Justin Barrett".
  • Self-identification as a trigger. I'm not saying that self-identification, alone, suffices. Any more than someone self-describing as a Trekkie, without other evidence/sourcing, would suffice. However, if someone seemingly self-identifies, wears the costumes, quotes the scripts, goes to the conventions, displays the hand signals, seemingly has the merch, and frequently cosplays with their mates, (and independent sources cover many/all of these things and directly refer to the subject as a Trekkie) then it wouldn't seem unreasonable to mention it. And, frankly, could be somewhat unreasonable not to.
(As noted, I'd advocated against using the term for a long time. As, while there were indicators, those advocating its inclusion did not have the reliable/verifiable/independent sourcing to support its inclusion. That is no longer the case. Hence, "he has been described as a Neo-Nazi" seems a reasonable inclusion. In the lead. Guliolopez (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, those sources are in the minority of how he is described in reliable sources(see my latest comment on this RFC). The lede should express a consensus, not minority, viewpoints. If you're really itching to add the "neo-nazi" language, a section dedicated to this debate (some say he's a neo-nazi; others say he's hard/far-right) is more appropriate than changing the lede. Jcgaylor (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um... why would I be blocked? I suggest you use Ctrl+F on the sources. And read WP:NPA. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "None of the sources call him that". As noted, this is not entirely accurate. The current affairs magazine, The Phoenix, has expressly referred to him as "neo-Nazi Justin Barrett". Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No the source uses national socialist which is surely more accurate? As per the national socialism disambiguation page while often used to refer to it, there seems to be other cases where it's not as explcitiy in the source. IndrasBet (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source uses "neo-Nazi." I don't understand your second sentence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be mentioned in some form, since it is a major part of his notability; however, the exact wording (attributed vs. unattributed; calling him a neo-Nazi himself vs. merely being linked to neo-Nazi groups, etc) should depend on an in-depth analysis of the sources. But at the bare minimum we can't omit his links to neo-Nazi groups, because those have had a major impact on his political career. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Public political figure and sources describe him that way. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, there have been three sources (one which being his wife) to support the "neo-nazi" label being added to the lede. I've listed seven sources that support the "hard-right" or "far-right" label. Since the quality of these sources are relatively equal, this decision should be based on the volume of sources supporting each label. Since the latter is better supported, it should be in the lede (as it currently is).
That some other sources (or his political rivals) describe him as a "neo-nazi" is better placed in a section beneath the lede (as it currently is).
For these reasons, again, the status quo is sufficient. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "why not both?" meme here. There is no reason we need only have one valid description. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a valid desciption though, especially considering the context of the very few sources that do use that label. The quality and breadth of the sources describing him as "far right" far exceed those that label him a "neo-nazi".
It is inappropriate editorializing to include the latter in the lede. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about counting sources and they're not mutually exclusive. It's central to his notability. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were central to his notability, it would be included in coverage far more common, and not exclusively in opinion pieces that give a passing mention to the subject. WP:RS is clear on this.
Taking his coverage in its totality, there is little to support his being called a "neo-nazi". Jcgaylor (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess if you don't count what he says on his social media or his speeches, or the fact that he dresses up in neo-nazi uniforms, or the fact that various reliable sources describe him as such, then there is little to go on... /s BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there aren't various reliable sources that call him that. The one that keep getting pointed to is an opinion piece from the Phoenix. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Dublin riots

[edit]

Is posting messages from his telegram without any additional comment really acceptable for a Wikipedia article? Also the one mentioning “all hands on deck”, he reposted that from another account, whereas the description leaves the impression he created it himself. Qwdfnjkl (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In terms of the concern about social media reposts V posts, I've tweaked the wording to better reflect the source. In terms of Wikipedia republishing multiple social media posts by this subject, I expect a discussion is probably coming on where the line might be. And whether each post by the subject necessarily needs its own sentence/para/section (or mention at all). Guliolopez (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Remove "and compared himself to Josef Mengele, who was involved in Nazi human experimentation, in a Tweet in October 2025", it is only sourced to a tweet by himself https://x.com/BarrettNatSocP/status/1977838806683255224

On another page, an admit stated "Deciding which quotes from someone's social media account to include, especially when committing OR with language like similarly, is not fine. We don't decide what views of a BLP should be included, secondary sources do that. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly does not allow statements not about the subject themselves." ~2025-31100-58 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging this admin @ScottishFinnishRadish: ~2025-30759-00 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NotJamestack (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, there is no problem including this. It is the subject talking about himself; there is no question of OR. It's an entirely different set of circumstances. The only question is whether it is WP:DUE. I believe a tweet such as that, published by a politician, is absolutely due for inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's UNDUE to include; our standards for inclusion focus on reliable, secondary sources. I see no good reason to include an ABOUTSELF claim when that section cites several controversial claims that are covered by secondary sources. The easiest way to tell if a claim is DUE for inclusion is to see how and how much that claim is discussed in secondary sources. In this case, it appears to have received no attention from secondary sources, so we shouldn't include it given the availability of similar material that is discussed in secondary sources. Suriname0 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In honesty, I'm slightly conflicted on this. As noted in a recent edit summary and a somewhat related discussion above, while the proposed text would seem to meet WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:TWITTER (when taken in isolation), I wonder if this title is edging towards becoming a mirror/republisher of every provocative tweet/post by the subject. If there's consensus that, going forward, it would be better if these things were covered/referenced in other sources, then that would seem a reasonable inclusion criteria to me. As, otherwise and absent some other criteria, potentially republishing/reposting every trolling tweet by the subject doesn't seem appropriate. (FWIW, I'm not advocating the "retrospective" application of any criteria. But do wonder if there should be some form of criteria going forward. And, absent another proposal, the one suggested by @Suriname0 doesn't seem unreasonable...). I appreciate that this is a somewhat wishy-washy interjection. But hey ho... Guliolopez (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't find arguments about DUE compelling, you might find the guidance of WP:BLPPRIMARY useful: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. .... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." We should have an extreme bias against primary sources – even WP:ABOUTSELF sources – in BLPs. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here from WP:RSN to say that Wikipedia editors should absolutely not be in the business of picking and choosing which of a person's social media posts to include on a BLP article. That way lies madness. If the tweet gets coverage in a secondary source, then the argument for WP:DUE can be made - but right now, no. Astaire (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Backlink to RSN discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_494#Twitter_post_as_a_source_on_article_Justin_Barrett? Suriname0 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for highlighting that RSN thread @Suriname0. It's interesting to read. Even after the fact. Although, in honesty and while largely moot, it raises several points of order:
  1. WP:COURTESY. No involved editors were notified of that noticeboard thread. I, for one, am just seeing it for the first time. Well after it was closed/archived.
  2. WP:AOBF. In opening the RSN thread, the single-edit anon states that "A user is edit warring". With a link to an edit of mine. Characterising one or two isolated edits of mine (made weeks apart and accompanied with good faith suggestions on establishing consensus) as examples of "edit warring" is not reasonable. Almost laughable. (In my two edits, I simply restored cited text. In good faith. As the removed text/refs seemed consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. And there seemed to be no policy- or consensus-based reason for removal. Characterising this as "edit warring" is inaccurate. At best. And disingenuous. At worst. )
  3. WP:FORUMSHOP. There was already an open thread at Article Talk when the (anonymously/silently posted RSN thread) was opened.
Anyway, as noted already (and indeed as given in the very edit summary that the anon inaccurately describes as "edit warring"), I wonder whether we have reached a point where re-posting every tweet by this subject is appropriate. And, absent another proposal, I wonder if going forward (not, FWIW, retrospectively) we should favour those tweets/utterances that have been covered in secondary sources. Rather than, to quote my own ES, "every seemingly deliberately provocative thing stated by the subject [on twitter]". Guliolopez (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All very valid points. I note the logged-out user (who has failed to further identify themselves - apparently IP users who have an account but are logged out now get shown in this format) completely ignored the users there and here saying WP:ABOUTSELF applied. In general, I agree with your last point, too, but I wouldn't have it as a blanket provision. There has been debate here about whether the subject can be described as a Nazi/neo-Nazi. Here, we have a tweet by the subject comparing himself to a very infamous one, and I would say that is very much WP:DUE anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]