Talk:Jack Posobiec

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 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, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 policy. 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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Menn, Joseph. "U.S. steps up pursuit of far-right activists in 2016 voter suppression probe". Reuters. Retrieved 16 December 2023.

Inclusion needed: Allegations of voter fraud

In October 2025 Slate Magazine published a report that Posobiec has been voting in Pennsylvania for years, despite being a resident of Maryland, allegedly using his parents home address for registering purposes. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/jack-posobiec-voter-fraud-pizzagate-maga.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B07B:9700:9D3A:6FF:A4F9:D39E (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please revert BlackKnightGC (talk · contribs) edits they removed a huge amount of sources and material with the false claim that they were weasel words 2001:8003:3E12:3300:E92C:8A09:237A:13B6 (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cannolis (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biased beyond all belief

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Accusations that "all (editors of this article|people who disagree with me) are [political slant]" or "all [politically slanted] sources are bad" are not productive. If you have concerns about the content of this article, please suggest specific, sourced changes. If you have concerns with the general reliability of a publication, take it to WP:RSN. If you believe that a specific editor is systematically POV-pushing, consider dispute resolution venues like WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disgustingly biased. 2601:647:6700:6BC0:78C9:6E76:5D92:37C2 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. You need to say what you want to change and how. For all we know, you could be from the extreme left or extrem right and just be complaining about the article not conforming to your opinion (as usual). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is has extreme left wing slant and uses many left wing communist and marxist dog whistles.

Example: 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. < every one of these falls within left wing dog whistles.

Posobiec was employed by One America News Network (OANN), a far-right cable channel, as a political correspondent and on-air presenter. < Alt right is another term coined by communists and marxists to red flag anyone to the right of them.

This shows left wing extremism by the writers of these articles and wikipedia which violates the rules regarding unbiased articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be UNBIASED and FACTUAL. When the writers of an article and maintainers of wikipedia are left wing and force articles to be left wing, this violates the intention and design of the platform.

I think this is the articulation that the individual would be referring to.

Mjp1976 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editors are being fast and loose with the facts here, most likely due to the kind of political bias Wikipedia claims not to have. The subject is listed as “alt-right” in the first sentence, and the first sentence of the “alt-right” page mentions white nationalism. Yet the subject has apparently publicly announced any association with white nationalism. I suppose that doesn’t stop Wikipedia from being quick to slander him.

You know it’s getting bad when I don’t trust the contents of a Wikipedia page without first reading the Talk section to see debate on where the bias is. What a travesty. 2600:8807:3C0A:D00:9003:A452:1894:CB9 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above post should say “denounced” instead of “announced” - such are the perils of typing out a response on one’s phone. My apologies. 2600:8807:3C0A:D00:9003:A452:1894:CB9 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those statements are all sourced to reliable sources. A source is deemed reliable if they are known for checking facts and not known for lying a lot and refusing to correct false statements. Being accused of being "left wing" by unreliable sources (those who lie a lot and refuse to correct false statements) or by anonymous people on the internet, like you, does not make a source unreliable or a statement false. Read argumentum ad hominem and WP:BIASED. If you want to convince people that there is something wrong with the article, you need to do much, much better. You sound like someone who has a false belief, is confronted with someone who is correct, and immediately starts attacking that someone instead of using valid reasoning or rethinking their own position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"not known for lying a lot and refusing to correct false statements" In other words, not having Fox News-style reporting. Honestly, I find Fox's ranking in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources bewildering. We have ranked it unreliable for "politics and science", but "generally reliable" on other topics. Does that reliability include the sensationalist coverage of crime topics, and the promotion of moral panics?Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources on the left or on the right, according to many media bias checks? The problem is when all the information provided as "reliable sources" are from one side of the political spectrum that creates an unbalanced article.

This is a common occurrence on Wikipedia where when you try to correct errors, leftists come out of the woodwork to defend their communist position.

One of the many reasons Wikipedia is banned as a valid source of information in colleges and universities is the editors cherry pick their information sources to support their narrative. This is a problem. If we were to take a look at the sources of this article we would find many of these sources are predominantly from a single side of the political spectrum.

How about this: let's verify the sources that are provided and if the information sourced is from a single side of the political spectrum to analyze the validity of the information being provided. Let us look at the authors of the information and verify if these authors are unbiased. You will find if you look that these authors operate on a single side of the spectrum.

Furthermore, using the subject of this article as a source material the last I checked was not allowed to be done on wikipedia. Many of the sources include links to the subjects own books.

Just because one says something is a reliable source does not make it a valid source to use. For example the southern Law poverty center is a communist organization that labels regular conservatism as extreme far right. IF that is a measure of balanced.. They label common sense as far right. This seems not to generate some questions in using them as a valid source I don't know what to tell you. Why is it if someone is against the LGBTQS++++ agenda they are automatically far right if they disagree with illogical conclusions that stem from communism?

The term FAR Right was coined by communists to label anything that does not align with their ideology as extremism. This is a danger to balanced articles.

Mjp1976 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, we produce our articles based on wikipedia policy and guidelines, rather than the unsourced rantings of a far-right, anonymous wikipedia editor such as yourself. Walter Ego 18:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking each other as "far-right" or "communist" is not productive. Comment on content, not on the contributor. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a majority of articles and the authors of these articles from one political side of the sphere, how can we have a properly balanced article? This is what I'm talking about. This is why Wikipedia has been nulled as a valid source of information in most places of education as it's as many of the articles do not have a balanced narrative.

How can we have have balanced narrative in an article when it uses spurious claims based on organizations such as SLPC who have a history of making spurious claims about individuals? This is just facts in evidence.

For the record, I never attacked anyone personally, I attacked an ideology, and organizations that operate within that ideology, I never made a personal attack on any one individual editor.

Mjp1976 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at User talk:Mjp1976#Civility to avoid moving this conversation further away from the content of this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is when all the information provided as "reliable sources" are from one side of the political spectrum Yes, it is a problem that most right-wing sources are lying their asses off so we can only rely on the non-right-wing ones. But we cannot solve that problem on this talk page or even within Wikipedia. Therefore, this is off-topic and does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the bias that we are referring to. To arbitrarily state this: "Yes, it is a problem that most right-wing sources are lying their asses off so we can only rely on the non-right-wing ones." This is what the OP of this thread was poorly articulating. Mjp1976 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 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.

Wife's name

Add wife's name Tatsiana Harbach. 68.193.198.183 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of sources calling him righwing or far-right

But we call him alt-right. Note the SPLC does not call him alt-right.[1] Doug Weller talk 14:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]