Talk:Bo Winegard

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon race.svg

This Racialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Bo Winegard drama[edit]

Bo Winegard has responded to this article [1] as added by user Jinx, and that response has been spammed on various social media platforms in the last 24 hours. I have removed his response for now. I recommend waiting till the drama all slows down. Do not feed this guy or his followers traffic. John66 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Obvious main thing to do is to go over it nailing down every sentence, cite every claim - particularly those objected to - etc. We do need to make sure this is all as 100% checkably correct as possible. Also, archive everything in both archive.org and archive.is - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree and this recent source, is a goldmine of information. "Winegard’s research, which discusses psychological differences across human populations, has been criticized for resembling the pseudoscience employed by eugenicists." John66 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This content is false. [2], I am not sure why it is being restored. John66 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wholescale whitewashing[edit]

@John66 You mass-deleted content that was curated by many editors here. There are many references in this content. It is untrue that "Oliver Smith" wrote this. For example, you deleted content that was added by @Bongolian in August.

I agree that the page should be protected as a pre-emptive strike against vandals. However, I completely disagree with your deletion of curated content based on the link you gave in the edits. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No that is not quite correct. I deleted the section on Emil Kirkegaard [3]. This is an article on Bo Winegard. We do not need an entire section on Emil Kirkegaard or his views on child rape. This sort of guilt by association ruins decent content on articles, it has nothing to do with Bo Winegard. Winegard is a friend of Kirkegaard but we don't need an entire section on two of his tweets. I never said "oliver smith" wrote the content. The account who created the article was anonymous and sent me some strange emails. I have no reason to believe it was Smith. John66 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The "Make more white babies" section should also be removed. Yes I did remove it. He isn't even talking about white babies. Its nonsense pure and simple that entire section is. John66 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
See Association fallacy. John66 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I see your point, but complete vaporization? The content can be trimmed to de-emphasize Kirkegaard but some mention is appropriate. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm also a bit baffled because your reason for deleting this mess in the logs is because of a lawsuit between Kirkegarard and someone, which is not what you said above. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
My edits have nothing to do with any lawsuit. EK removed content because he/she misread a lawsuit, you can read about that on Kirkegaard's talk page. No judge has ruled that any content on RationalWiki is defamatory in relation to Kirkegaard. It is a non-issue but I agree with EK that said content should be removed off this website because these people are known for their racism, we don't need to be talking about their sexual beliefs. My issue is not with any lawsuit, it is about improving article content. I like to keep things accurate and well sourced. If you check the logs on this article, I made an edit summary "Emil Kirkegaard has his own article, none of this is relevant on Winegard" [4]. I do not see why we have an entire section on Kirkegaard. It is an association fallacy. He is already mentioned in the lead of the article, an entire section is off-mission. There is also mention of white babies and the Christchurch terrorist attacks. Content should be removed because it is not properly sourced. We should keep to the facts about Winegard per sources and what he actually believes. Do you agree? John66 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't really agree because it seems like relevant context and imo there is no reason to remove anything that doesn't have to be removed. Remember Smith published a lot of articles here and we have not deleted anything he wrote just because he wrote it. EK (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This quote "If we owe the future a decent planet, don't we also owe it more children? So many people have been terrified into believing that more children will destroy the planet. But the opposite is likely true: When the population shrinks, it leads to many deleterious outcomes." does not mention white babies. He is not talking about white people in specific. John66 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
"Similar to Kirkegaard, Winegard sits on Twitter telling white people to breed more". Neither Kirkegaard or Winegard sit all day on Twitter telling people to breed more. The statement is false. We should not be inserting false statements into articles. John66 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
you already wrote that something to the effect of he's a white supremacist and if that's true then he definitely did mean increasing the population of white people. Like duh. EK (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)