[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Vox Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alt Right Activist?

[edit]

I don't believe there's any real justification for calling Vox Day an alt right activist. Alt Right is a subjective and loaded term. What does it even mean to be an alt right activist? It's often used as a term to identify white supremacists, which Vox Day is not. Vox Day is a known conservative, and he pushes a conservative agenda on his highly trafficked blog. He is also the author of "anti SJW" books, but this does not qualify him as being an alt right activist, again, because the term has no solid meaning. References that label him as such are written by his political opponents, and in my view, Wikipedia should be above endorsing that level of political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.10.162 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is besides the point. This isn't the place to debate the true meaning of alt-right. "Conservative" could also be said to have "no solid meaning" as well, if you're willing to apply the same post-modernist contortions. Is Beale the intellectual heir to William F. Buckley Jr.? No, I don't think sources support that. So what does "conservative" mean in this context? What sources call him a conservative activist? We already explain, with sources, his position as an alt-right figure, but without context provided by reliable sources, "conservative" is so vague it's essentially meaningless. When you, as an anonymous Wikipedia editor, identify a source as being written by his political opponents... it doesn't actually matter. Sources written by opponents can still be reliable. We are not interested in only using sympathetic sources, nor are we interested in using "both sides" as though both sides were always equal. If reliable sources say he's alt-right, that's a good indicator we should also say he's alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are enumerable references to Vox Day as a conservative. To quote: "...and conservative Castalia editor Vox Day (née Theodore Beale) was nominated for both Best Long- and Short-Form Editor." This comes from https://www.popsci.com/culture-wars-raging-within-science-fiction-fandom I can offer several links referring to Vox Day as a conservative. I argue that there are far more references to Vox Day being a conservative than there are to Vox Day being an alt right activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.10.162 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and are those defining traits according to those sources, or are they passing mentions to provide context for other points? The Popsci article goes on to call Beale an outspoken white supremacist and campaigner against women’s education and suffrage. If the source is reliable for calling him "conservative" is it also reliable for calling him a white supremacist? Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An open letter was published to Popsci in regards to the language used to describe Vox Day as a white supremacist and campaigner against women's suffrage. The women's suffrage issue has already been cleared up, and trying to push that narrative is beneath Wikipedia. Regarding the conservative label being a passing mention, to use the logic you've presented, there are enough reliable sources referencing Vox Day as a conservative that's it's a good indicator we should also say he's a conservative. Regarding the "vagueness" of the word conservative (your word), I argue that it's far more concrete of a term than alt right. 24.172.10.162 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second "source article" listed for the claim that Vox Day is a 'white supremacist' doesn't even mention the term in the article. So now, Wikipedia and its editors can outright lie, put the convenient little "source claims" next to the loaded phrase, and still not have any actual proof.
Allow me to LOL at your "reliable sources", if Wikipedia is a circus, you and your cohort are the main clowns. The closest thing I could find was a link within a link within a link, which led me to a post he made in which he stated, "...celebrate the infestation of even the smallest American heartland towns by African, Asian and Aztec cultures, and engage in ruthless doublethink as they worship at the altar of a false and entirely nonexistent equality."
If you're going to quote a source, then do it directly, as I have done. And then we can argue whether this is "white supremacist" or not. Although I personally don't see anything in that quote that states that white people are "supreme", do you?
Or are we simply broadening definitions of white supremacy to include anyone who is critical of foreign cultures replacing and supplanting their own? 107.11.226.149 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dude uses "echo tags" and wants to deport anyone who came to US after... 1965. Calling him "alt-right" is being charitable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of conservatives want to deport illegal/undocumented immigrants. This is not an argument. 24.172.10.162 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice try. Let me repeat since you didn't bother reading first time: he wants to deport anyone who came to US after 1965. Got it buddy? You know what is not an argument? A strawman. And oh yeah, do "a lot of conservatives" use anti-semitic triple parentheses to signal their bigotry against Jews? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is true. I do not believe Vox Day wants to deport anyone who came to the United States after 1965. I think that is significantly misleading. Regarding triple parentheses, I don't think presuming someone's motive is wise or appropriate here. 24.172.10.162 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree that Alt-right is thrown around way to easily on Wikipedia, but he is from what I can tell self describes as alt-right here. There are also several other RS that describe him as such here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting link, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but I get the impression that he's trying to define the label in that post rather than apply the label to himself. That said, I think his definition is pretty far removed from the general consensus. At some point, I think definitions matter. It's difficult when dealing with a controversial figure like Vox Day, which is why I think we have to be extra careful about allowing bias to slip in. 24.172.10.162 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewashing a far-right polemicist as being merely "conservative" is also a form of bias. Being extra careful doesn't mean bending over backwards to use vague or euphemistic language. We weigh reliable sources. Definitions do matter, but we, as editors, are not the authorities on definitions who get to override what sources say. If sources specifically say he's alt-right (which you can categorize as a subset of conservative, if you like) than so should we. "Conservative activist" is pablum. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People who have little knowledge of Vox Day and are too lazy to use the search box on his blog, should stop editing this article.

Vox Day wrote in 2016: "I have never been a conservative. I will never be a conservative. I am delighted to see the conservative movement crumbling into dust. Conservatives conserve nothing, accomplish nothing, and stand for nothing. They will not defend the Church, they will not defend America, and they will not defend the West... The Alt Right will. Join us, if you have the steel."[1]Knox490 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So one guy that doesn't even have his own Wikipedia page calls him a white supremacist and suddenly it's on his page? I feel like you need more than just that to smear somebody with that term. People are talking about the term alt-right getting thrown around too much... I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call him alt-right, but white supremacist is not accurate, even if the SPLC has convinced everyone that alt right and white supremacist are synonymous terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonlimeotter (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beale literally endorses the Fourteen Words - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Directly underneath that, it is stated, "The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers." It's literally right after the Fourteen Words. Simply not wanting to go extinct does not make one inherently supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonlimeotter (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You came back three months later to defend the Fourteen Words?
Anyway... What Beale is describing is ethnic nationalism, in context it's unambiguously referring to white nationalism. That's a concept which was formed to make white supremacy seem more appealing. Beale is not qualified to decide which "human sub-species" get to belong to any given culture, nor does he have any insight into how that "culture" would be defined. This dime-store fascism is is entirely compatible with the alt-right. More importantly, we are interested in what reliable sources say, and Beale isn't reliable. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Spaghetti

[edit]

This man is now known as "Teddy Spaghetti" across most of the internet, the name has been mentioned in direct reference to Vox Day by many influencers, e-celebs and even actual celebrities and public figures. It's a reference to the fact he created the Spaghetti game called "Best Dish". I think this should be added next to his name as more people know him as Teddy Spaghetti than Vox Day now. I cannot perform this edit myself as I am not a registered contributor.

I am surprised to see that this is indeed a thing! However, it hasn't made it to the "Reliable Sources", so we can't include it as yet - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References


References to 2016 Dragon Awards

[edit]

In the publishing section the statement "2016 Castalia House works had two wins at the Dragon Awards" was supported with two references:

1) The page of the Dragon Awards themselves, which was tagged as "non-primary source needed" (Template:Primary_source_inline). I believe this is improperly tagged: According to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

In my opinion, citing the official web page of the awards to verify the winners is using a reputably published source, it is not an interpretation of the primary source, and it's a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact. I will therefore remove this tag.

2) An account published in the File 770 newszine/blog. This was tagged as "unreliable source?", with "reason=blog" (Template:Unreliable_source%3F).

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[10] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Mike Glyer's File 770 is a not some random personal blog, but a highly respected newszine in the field of science fiction & fantasy. It's about as highly-respected as it's possible to be, with File 770 having won seven Hugo Awards for Best Fanzine, and its editor, Mike Glyer, having won one Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer. I believe that establishes it as a self-published reliable source produced by an established expert on the subject matter, particularly within the context of a not self-serving, factual matter like this one. I will therefore also remove this tag.

To be sure, I have added an additional reference to The Internet Speculative Fiction Database.

If you are going to restore the tags I have removed, please explain your rationale here. Db105 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic minorities = infestation

[edit]

Firstly full disclosure. I'm right leaning and not a fan of mass immigration. I also think the book SJWs Always Lie should be required reading. I've viewed Vox as someone with some issues but worth listening to nonetheless. So when I viewed "He has been described as a white supremacist, a misogynist, and part of the alt-right" I rolled my eyes as these terms have lost all meaning, and I'm sure that's the reaction many will have (He is alt-right, but people would say it even if he wasn't).

I followed the frankly unnecessarily long breadcrumb trail to the actual article which provides the evidence of him being a white supremacist, and that evidence is fairly clear (sidenote: a website called "RightWingWatch" is considered a credible source?). On WND.com Vox refers to the "infestation of even the smallest American heartland towns by African, Asian and Aztec cultures".

Infestation? Much as I would be more politically aligned with him than many of his opponents, surely this is hate speech. I think this genuine racism needs highlighting and wondering if this could be referenced on the page to make it clear WHY people consider him a white supremacist so that it's not seen as the usual left-wing bias on Wikipedia (again the fact that "RightWingWatch" is considered a suitable source provides some evidence of this bias). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:722A:C400:D90B:346B:F0EC:4E7F (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who last year decided that a right-winger should be called a left-winger[2] and thought some sort of hippy site was sufficient. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't we using his real name?

[edit]

I'm wondering why we are using the title he gave himself instead of his real name. Wouldn't that make more sense? 185.185.161.243 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a subject has more than one name, Wikipedia articles use the most commonly recognised one for the title of the article, mainly to make it easier to find. Magic9Ball (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libel

[edit]

This article is pure slander Triaxialcommet86 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it slander? Vox is outspoken enough in his beliefs that I don't think there's room for doubt. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite ironic, since the article appears to have been significantly whitewashed and sanitized since the last time I read it, coming close to false neutrality. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vox_Day&oldid=1230914654"