This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Pinging @StardustToStardust: to reach resolution. I have disengaged from the article as to avoid edit warring. However, the recent edits to this page add text that does not appear to be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources do, however, describe 1819 as conservative: it's not "slippery" if that's what sources say. Neither the Advocate article nor the WTVM article sourced in the lead describe 1819 as being primarily or singularly known for doxxing or outing. The wording used here gives the impression that is the majority of 1819's output, which is not the case, though the very sad Copeland story has been brought to national attention. Outing is the term used by many articles, though I don't see where doxing has been used as the terminology (although that would sadly probably be accurate, we still need to match the sources). Kafoxe (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1819 News is not a "conservative" website. It's a website controlled by former staff members of the alt-right propaganda mill Breitbart. Its staff members have essentially celebrated the death of the person they drove to suicide. This is the absolute definition of a whitewash. Did you not read the sources inserted into the article?
There was likely passing mentions of a generic "conservatism" when the site was less known. There's now enough to establish the radical views of the website in my opinion. It's a horrid situation all around... But one shouldn't forget that in our lifetimes Southerners celebrated the lynchings of black people. It's a very backwards part of the world... Essentially the Christian taliban. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not publish WP:ORIGINAL research. If sources do not yet say that 1819 News is far-right, then we cannot say that. The staffing of the site does not allow us to make this claim, either, unless a source has pointed this out and attributed the far-right term to them. Your latter comments here seem to be more focused on the kind of people Southerners and Christians are, rather than maintaining a neutral point of view for the article. I have problems with how other Christians abuse faith, but as we have discussed at WP:NPOV/N, using this article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Kafoxe (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stardust said at WP:NPOV/N that multiple reliable sources have stated that 1819 News doxed multiple people other than Copeland, but that is not shown by the sources provided in the article. We have to revert the lead to the way it was before, but it's hard doing that when this user keep edit warring. The idea that this website is "far-right" is also yet to be sourced. SparklyNights23:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the first paragraph to say "conservative," which is what reliable sources are using, not "far-right." I also removed the claim that 1819 News is known for "doxxing and outing public and private individuals for LGBTQIA activity." This suggests multiple incidents and as far as I can see, Copeland is the only one. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss that here? I have nothing against calling people far-right, but I believe that most reliable sources were describing 1819 as Conservative just a while ago. Right now there is only one source backing up that claim. I will remove the wikilink due to the far-right article having a nazi flag as its lead image, which a previous discussion here on Wikipedia said should not show up at articles about people/orgs that are not described as being associated with Nazi-like movements. SparklyNights18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source used seems to be an opinion piece from an LGBT-focused magazine. While that's a fine source to use, especially in reaction to the Copeland story, I'm not sure about using it for statement of fact about 1819 as an organization, as the majority of other sources, including ones local to Alabama, use simply "conservative" in other coverage that mentions 1819. Another source added to the page is from Wonkette, a satirical Gawker Media publication, and uses it for factual reference. The page also no longer mentions doxing, which I haven't found to be the term used in any non-opinion pieces or blogs, but it links to the Doxing page through a hidden piped link, which I don't think is in line with MOS:EGG. Kafoxe (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
