This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vox Day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Vox Day" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contents of the Infogalactic (website) page were merged into Vox Day on 9 December 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
References
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)
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)
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)
This article is pure slander Triaxialcommet86 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)