Talk:Jack Buckby

Sourcing must comply with WP:RS

There's been a lot of stuff added repeatedly to this page that isn't in mainstream, verifiable Reliable Sources. WP:BLP requires that sources be solid - and that stuff without a solid source shouldn't be in the article. Editors should review both WP:RS and WP:BLP, stop adding questionable sources that don't provide reliable third-party back up for claims, and stop removing the tags denoting questionable sourcing. Arguably, the page should be stripped back strictly to statements backed by mainstream third-party coverage - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"administrator"

Wikipedia administrators aren't content moderators - I'm an admin, but I'm editing here as an editor. That said, I'm a fairly experienced one, so I can hopefully point everyone in a useful direction: if you have a serious sourcing dispute, the places to address it are, firstly, here. If we can't work it out here, the next place to call is at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard - best choose one at first. If your concern is as to the quality of a given source, the first one is the one you want - take care to note details of the actual dispute, so that RSN has context - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the Far Right

The following discussion 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.

---

In his most recent work, Buckby has criticized the far right and argued that the far right is being emboldened by political negligence in working class communities. That has not been included in this page and whenever it has been included it has been removed by anonymous users. I have copied an interaction with one of the anonymous users who removed the one section talking about his criticism of the far right to demonstrate that this issue may be being affected by personal feelings and political disagreements of editors on this page.

I think this page would benefit from at least a sentence that describes how Buckby criticizes neo-Nazis/neo-fascists. It is simply a matter of fact. Please find the interaction below, to support the point I made:

--

"How dare you suggest I am editing Buckby's page because I do not like him; I do not like history being rewritten.

It is evident from Buckby's twitter and youtube that he considers people that aren't 'far-right', by most educated persons in the field, 'far-left' - he is no authority on what is and isn't the 'far-right' and as such he is not a vocal critic of it because he cannot even define it properly.

Buckby sent a tweet offering his book for free in exchange for a review - Helen Dale responded to this tweet taking him up on the offer. The review is overtly positive and as such is not a reliable source considering her history.

He is still far more critical of anyone left of the centre-right than 'neo-nazis'; evidenced by his pathetic ramblings about Dominic Cummings posted yesterday to his youtube.

He is engaged to a woman that frequently engages with alt-right, white supremacists on twitter. She often posts inflammatory tweets aimed at non-white people.

It's sad that you cannot see Buckby for what he really is, critic of the far-right, he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.195.68 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)"

"Hello, and thank you for responding. You seem quite offended and that was not my intention. Buckby criticizes the far right, specifically neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and racists frequently on his Twitter. Book reviews are perfectly common, it's a practice in the publishing industry, and him sending a book to be reviewed does not mean it was commissioned. Books frequently receive negative reviews after being sent to outlets for free.

Your use of phrases like "pathetic ramblings about Dominic Cummings" I'm afraid suggests you have quite a personal and emotional reason to be removing things from Buckby's page. If he criticizes the far right, which he does in his book, in his articles, in videos and in interviews, then it should be portrayed on this page. Whether you agree that he has changed his mind or not is a personal matter, if he criticizes neo-Nazis then this should be established on his biography.

How, therefore, would you suggest this be resolved? Remember you can't edit pages based on personal opinions and feelings. There are several instances of him criticizing the far right, and his book is just one example of him criticizing the far right. If he criticizes the left, that doesn't change the fact he has also criticizes the far right.

I would hope you might consider editing the section about the kind of things he criticizes in content he "frequently publishes" but I am getting the impression that you don't want to accept anything that suggests Buckby criticizes the far right because you don't personally agree with him?"

Please remember to sign your comments as I do below!

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

--

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Buckby Is An Author and Researcher

Buckby is an author and a researcher. He wrote a book about his radicalisation in the BNP, and about far-right radicalisation generally.

It is here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Monster-of-Their-Own-Making/Jack-Buckby/9781642934243

He is also a Research Associate at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

https://fcpp.org/authors/jack-buckby/

This is backed up by many Canadian newspapers who refer to him as a frontier centre research associate. Many such examples of this, one example is the Hamilton Spectator:

https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/2019/10/10/clean-timely-brexit-would-be-good-for-britain-and-canada.html (see the bottom)

This entire page focuses on what Buckby did in the past. None of it covers what he does and is today. It is, therefore, misleading.

Buckby is a former far-right activist. This must be acknowledged and his past is detailed. But wiping out anything else he has done is misleading

Buckby is an author and research associate. These are both verifiable facts, with reliable sources. An anonymous user with a long history on this page of attempting to erase any of Buckby's work that doesn't involve far-right activism keeps removing these facts, and deeming the sources "unreliable", and accusing me of vandalizing the page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia rules state that you should not immediately accuse others of vandalism. I am hesitant to say the same back, but I quite easily could.

This page should reflect the fact that Buckby is an author, research associate, and former far-right activists. These are sourced and demonstrably true.

If this page doesn't include that information, then it might as well call him a Nazi, which is just as misleading (and inaccurate) as the page currently is. Rosswikieditor (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) RossWikiEditor

Is there reliable source coverage about Buckley, not by Buckley, that discusses him as an author, research associate, or describes him as a former far-right activist? A byline isn't really good enough. All the material apart from his political activism was supported by primary sources, and other inappropriate sources. The inclusion of the material did not establish due weight for inclusion and constituted, for the most part, original research. Ralbegen (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And to add, yes, please, everybody should assume good faith. Vandalism means something specific and editors shouldn't accuse one another of doing it unless it's obvious that's what's going on. Neither you nor the IP was vandalising the page. Ralbegen (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A byline in several newspapers clearly establishes it as true. It is not a personal assertion. The newspapers say it, not him. By the way, as you know, under the biographies of living people rules, primary sources are acceptable in some instances (though this isn't a primary source either) and so this shouldn't be an issue. Both the Frontier Centre themselves in the source above, and legitimate newspapers, establish Buckby as a research associate.

What's more, Simon and Schuster distributed one of this three books. Three books he wrote, which makes him an author.

Both of these are facts. If you don't include these facts because they aren't reported on by the media (why would they now he isn't involved in far-right activism? that kidn of proves the point here), you are misleading readers by giving them outdated information. I get it. People don't like him. And presumably some of the people editing this don't like him either - including anon users who repeatedly break the rules but who have not been banned. But it doesn't mean they get to erase who he is and what he does. He is an author and a researcher as established by the reputable sources given.

To leave out these two pieces of information is to mislead readers who will see this and assume Buckby remains involved with far-right politics when objectively, he does not. He is an author and researcher who writes about extremism. You don't have to call him an extremism expert as the other anon user takes issue to. You don't have to big him up or promote him.

You just have a responsibility to write what is true, and established, reliable sources (Canadian newspapers, Frontier Centre, AND Simon and Schuster) all show that he is, without any reasonable doubt, an author and a researcher/research associate.

These things are true, and should therefore be used to accurately portray the person in this biography.

Rosswikieditor (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No third-party sources say Buckby is a political commentator, yet that is included because one user decided that's what he is. Though multiple reliable sources, including one of the biggest publishers in the world, show Buckby is both an author and a researcher, but that is being left out.

Why?

Rosswikieditor (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of reliable source coverage of Buckby, and it's all about his far-right activism and political candidacies. I agree that bylines and an author listing are verifiable, but they don't establish any due weight. It makes it hard to write much substantial, but something minimal in the body could work. A section titled "Later career" with a passage like: In 2019 and 2020, Buckby wrote for the media agency Troy Media, where his byline credited him as a research associate at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank. He has written books titled X, Y and Z. Would that be all right? I think anything beyond that would be undue and original research. He's not notable for being a research associate or an author so I don't think it would be appropriate to describe him as either of these in the first sentence of the lead. Ralbegen (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a duty to give people accurate information, does it not? Buckby is known in Canada as a research associate for the Frontier Centre as his work appears in several Canadian newspapers under that byline. That is what he is known for by Canadian readers. He is also known as an author by the people who read his books. Like him or not, this is what he does now.

And it is not erasing his past, either. There's an entire page of his past. He is a researcher and an author of a book about far-right radicalisation. That's pretty important for someone reading about this person, who will read this article having no idea whatsoever that this person is not the person characterised in the article.

Think about this way: If you have never heard of this person and you read this article, you will go away thinking he is a far-right activist, won't you? Perhaps that's what some editors want.

In truth, he is a former far-right activist who writes about extremism, who writes books, and who works as a researcher. These are established facts.

All this article needs is to recognise him as what he is. 1. an author, which he is, and reliable sources (including one of the largest publishers in the world) establish this. 2. he is a researcher and/or a research associate. 3. He is a former far-right activist.

The inclusion of this one simple line at the top ensures readers know that this article references historical media coverage, and that the media coverage has stopped precisely because he stopped the far-right activism. And then the rest of the article includes all the crazy far right stuff that the editors are very keen to keep. Rosswikieditor (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth. Reliable source coverage of Buckby in news articles (there aren't any academic sources I can find) is of him as a far-right activist. That's what he's notable for. There aren't any reliable sources that describe him as a former far-right activist. No coverage of Buckby refers to him as an author or as a research associate. If you search for reliable sources describing him as "former far-right", you get only sources referring to him as a far-right former member of the BNP. Ralbegen (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You are deliberately misleading readers by purposely giving them out of date information. You'll gladly call him a "commentator" without a source, but ignore reliable sources that prove he is, without any reasonable doubt, an author and a researcher. Despite the fact he is an author and a researcher, despite having readers in Canada who read his newspaper columns which are a result of his work at the Frontier Centre. Rosswikieditor (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't call him a commentator. I think he should be described as an activist, which is how independent reliable sources describe him, and especially for a BLP, we should follow independent reliable sources. But we've both made our positions clear—it's probably best to let other users share their views. Ralbegen (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But he's not an activist. He was an activist. When was his most recent political activism? Where? What? He is not a member of a political party and not politically active at all. See the problem here? You're using out of date sources. He quite clearly is not an activist and has been talking about this on social media today too - that's why i'm here again. He said it himself. So you get to say who and what he is based on outdated reports? Ignoring new sources that show he is an author and a researcher? Rosswikieditor (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Buckby still consistently posts what most people would consider 'far-right' takes on his Twitter account. I agree he is not an activist, but it would be misleading to describe him as an author or research. I would disagree that we should include new information on Buckby just because. Wikipedia only hosts Articles on note-worthy individuals; his current work is not note-worthy. We don't need an update on his life story because it's not relevant or note-worthy. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth.95.148.249.169 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

95.148.249.169, I don't see any issue with mentioning his book if RS is covering it. It doesn't take anything away from the rest of the article. If articles are referring to him as an author ([1]) I don't think it's misleading to describe him asuch. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

First up, Jack Buckby's social posts are not "far-right". He is a conservative, simple as that. He does not advocate any kind of extremes in order to be deemed "far" right, in fact, as per the evidence you keep attempting to delete, he speaks out against the far-right and has even been recently attacked by nationalist groups for these views. There isn't a single far-right group or figure who he expresses any kind of support for. Regardless, this isn't about the degree to which your political compass is skewed to the left, it's simply about laying down the facts about the man's career. Speaking of his career (i.e the whole point of this page), he is a person who has published 3 books so it is factually accurate to describe him as an author and the platforms he has worked for and the books he has published are also relevant as they track his political shift away from the far right. All of this is provable fact, but you seem to think your opinion of Jack Buckby is all that matters, when in fact your opinon is the absolutely and totally irrelevant. As all other users seem to agree besides you, you should leave the facts to speak for themselves or it is you starting the unessesary edit war and nobody else. 91.110.151.147 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Advocating for the protection of a 'European' identity is a far-right position Buckby has espoused very recently https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1215784741305290752 Buckby also only started this attempt to reinvent himself as a moderate after someone compiled a lengthy list of evidence of his far-right and fascist views after it became clear his employment options were limited https://twitter.com/demarionunn/status/1013466306845335552 There is no evidence of Buckby ever refuting his past views as wrong. His book Monsters of their own... talks about his time in the BNP but conveniently does not talk about his time with Liberty GB, Tommy Robinson, Rebel Media, Ann Marie Waters, his C4 appearance etc. Buckby constantly claims that the 'far-left' are the reason why the 'far-right' exists. However he frequently misdefines moderate liberals as the far-left; again, this is a common tactic of the far-right. For Wikipedia's standards - he hasn't published three books, he has had one book published. The other two are self-published and as such are unreliable sources. 95.148.249.169 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)--95.148.249.169 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)d

The book linked above, Monster of Their Own Making, was published by Bombardier Books, a small right-wing imprint of Post Hill Press (it is linked on the Simon & Schuster website because they distribute books from Post Hill Press). It would have been more honest to link the book's page on its own publisher's website (i.e. Post Hill Press, not Simon and Schuster), which will provide a fuller context for the work.

Bombardier Books also publishes writers such as Robert Spencer and Melanie Phillips, both of whom are notorious for espousing the kind of counter-jihad/anti-Muslim politics that drew Buckby into the BNP/Liberty GB/Rebel Media in the first place (which he doesn't appear to have abandoned, even if he has been repelled by the racial nationalism and antisemitism in the BNP). Robert Spencer, for instance, has published Confessions of an Islamophobe through Bombardier. Is there not something of a theme at play here, with multiple books coming out from the same publisher, all seeking to put a distance between 'Islamophobia' and the more generalised nationalistic xenophobia of the far-right? In short, the logic that would have you think Geert Wilders is not far-right because he is more moderate than Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The imprimatur of a small press distributed through Simon & Schuster really doesn't prove that Buckby has become a leading expert in counter-extremism. Nothing he has done as a 'researcher' for the Frontier Centre is even vaguely notable by comparison to his political activism (which was itself largely irrelevant if we are to judge by his election results and the failure of every party he has involved himself with - but nonetheless sufficiently notable to comprise the majority of this article, especially the Batley and Spen by-election).

Nobody can provide citations about his career as a researcher from any major outlets (e.g. the Times, the Guardian, the Spectator) because his books are not relevant. Two of them are self-published vanity books, and the other was ignored by nearly everyone outside of the small right-wing think tank network from which it emanated. It is not a coincidence that one of Bucky's self-published books was co-written with Matt Palumbo, another Post Hill Press author (whose words of praise for Monster of Their Own Making are cited on its Amazon page). It only takes 5-10 minutes of basic research to see the amount of back-patting at play here.

Aside from Palumbo's contribution and seven Amazon reviews, you will have a hard time finding any reviews of this book. The only one I have found was written by Helen Dale for the right-wing British website CapX:

https://capx.co/the-inside-story-of-britains-far-right/

If this is your most notable (and only) source, you might need to accept that the information you are trying to add is not notable enough for inclusion, no matter how much you might like your friend Jack and want to make his page look more flattering.

AdaLeverkuhn (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Channel Four and William Baldet of the British government's Prevent programme consider him interesting enough to talk to about deradicalisation. This is mainstream mediac coverage discussing the fact that Buckby is a former far-right activist.

You might not like that his publisher publishes conservatives, but that isn't proof of anything. Wikipedia is lying about who this person is. It is factually inaccurate to call him a "far right activist." It is factually accurate to call him an author (even you guys who don't like him admit this is true), it is factually accurate to call him a researcher (because he is, and you know he is).

It is also factually accurate to call him a former far-right activist. Channel Four says so. Prevent believes so.

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

Rosswikieditor (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You might think it is irrelevant that his publisher tends to put out books by well-known Muslim baiters. However, given that Buckby's involvement with the far-right has largely revolved around anti-Muslim prejudice, it is clearly apposite to raise the issue. The supposed threat of Islamisation was the BNP's main rhetorical rallying point under the leadership of Nick Griffin, and was even more potent among the Liberty GB/For Britain crowd, as well as the Rebel Media. Buckby's more recent overtures to Polish nationalism - e.g. sympathetic Rebel Media interviews with the ultra-nationalist Krzysztof Bosak, candidate for Konfederacja in the recent presidential election - also suggest that he hasn't particularly departed from these views.

I agree that he is not a white nationalist. By his own account, it was the hostility of antisemitic racists in the BNP that alienated him from the party. White nationalism, however, is not the start and end of the far-right. The PVV and RN are not white nationalist parties, but both are regarded as parties of the far-right because of their prejudice against Muslims (among other things). It might be opportune to restrict the term 'far-right' to white nationalism for people looking to rehabilitate their anti-Muslim politics without sullying themselves by association with the term, but that is a self-serving maneuver, no matter how many Bombardier authors push the line. Political scientists use the term 'far-right' to describe more than just straight-up neo-Nazism. There is a reason that self-styled conservatives like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are considered far-right, and describing them as such doesn't mean they are identical to Roberto Fiore and Nick Griffin.

If Jack is the counter-extremism expert he is touting himself as, I'm sure it is only a matter of time before he starts enjoying sympathetic coverage from mainstream outlets for his work in successfully de-radicalising antisemitic white nationalists (and preventing them from organising, recruiting and committing violent acts). When that happens, you will have enough notable sources to revise the article to suit your tastes. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that outcome, though. He spends more time decrying what he perceives as the far-left than fighting to expose the falsity of far-right talking points and preventing the far-right from organising. His entire schtick is to blame the left for the growth of far-right parties, ignoring the demonstrable fact that Hope not Hate (maligned as 'far-left' by Buckby) has done far more than the Frontier Centre ever will to thwart National Action, the BNP, the NF et al.

AdaLeverkuhn (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream Coverage Proving Buckby is a Former Far-Right Activist

At what point will anonymous IP editors be stopped from making the incorrect assertion that Buckby is a far-right commentator?

Mainstream coverage from British news has shown Buckby talking about his deradicalisation with a representative of the British government's Prevent programme. William Baldet even says in the news report that now is the time to have difficult conversations and learn from Buckby's experience.

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

The above link is from JULY 2020. So why are sources from as far back as 2012 being used to say Buckby is currently a far-right activist? An anon IP editor saying that Buckby posts "far right things on Twitter" is 1. a personal opinion and not a fact, and 2. not proof.

Just how much mainstream media coverage does there need to be before Buckby can stop being lied about on Wikipedia? You don't believe him when he says it himself and you consider primary sources unreliable. Anon IP editors are dismissing legitimate, mainstream media sources like the one above (and never get banned!), and even his work as a researcher and the publication of a book on the topic are being dismissed.

What other explanation for this can there be than political bias? And people ask me why I edit this page. Why wouldn't I? What is happening here is disgusting.

Buckby is a former far-right activist, as mainstream media coverage PROVESItalic text and yet this page is not accurately describing him at all.

Why?

And while I'm here. All I have ever done is provided well-sourced information. Yet I have received bans and anon IP editors who use personal opinion as sources have not.

Also - why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswikieditor (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He is a primary source, as a such (and at best) we could say "But he now denies this". What we would need for us to say its not true is multiple RS saying its not true. So what RS say he is no longer far right?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Channel Four, given they talked to him about deradicalisation. You are using old media reports to describe him. They are old. Do you know what "former" means? It means those reports were accurate at the time. https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

2. Just because the media only reported on the sensationalist things he did in the past doesn't change reality. He is a former far-right activist, wrote a book describing the dangers of the movements he was involved with, and has appeared on national British television talking about it. The fact you won't accept this when it is true shows there is clear political bias at play.

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism

https://www.channel4.com/news/mother-talks-about-her-sons-rapid-descent-into-far-right-extremism Rosswikieditor (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

read wp:primary he is not an RS for his views of himself being true.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He claims to have moderated his beliefs, but the Channel 4 interview (repeatedly) provided above contains almost no information about what his current beliefs actually are or whether others have taken his de-radicalization seriously. Surely there are better sources available. For example, have any reliable publications reviewed his book Monster Of Their Own Making? Such reviews would be very helpful, but I did not have any more luck finding them than the discussion in the section above indicated. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So because a mainstream outlet doesn't consider his counter-extremism work as newsworthy as his sensationalist far-right work, does that mean Wikipedia should lie about him? That doesn't make any sense. If he wrote a book, published by Post Hill Press and distributed by Simon and Schuster, in which he very clearly condemns the far right on several occasions and explains what he believes pushes young men to the far right, then it only counts if a media outlet talks about this? That's quite a scary precedent because it means Wikipedia will publicly portray somebody as someone they used to be.

It is accurate, fair, and important to include the horrible things Buckby has done and said in the past. But it is inaccurate to label him a "far right" commentator when he has publicly condemned the far right and his past behaviour. He even condemns the far right, his past behaviour (admitting it was hateful) in the Channel Four RS used above. He also describes himself as a conservative in the Channel Four interview, and William Baldet from the UK Government's "Prevent" programme says it's important to listen to Jacks' story to see how it can help other young men.

So because media outlets only report on his shocking, racist behaviour in the past - and his more recent work is not newsworthy because it isn't shocking - it's acceptable for Wikipedia to portray him as something he's not, by using sources that are almost 10 years out of date?

That makes absolutely no sense and suggests that people are maybe more inclined to portray him in a negative light because they don't agree with his political opinions.

If Buckby goes on to work with the government to help deradicalise young men - which as far as you know, he could be - then is it right that Wikipedia portrays him as "far right" forever? That is quite insane.

The Channel Four is an RS, he was supported by a government-backed deradicalisation expert, and Buckby even condemned his past behaviour as hateful. You can hear him say it in the video.

We need to get rid of the emotion here and use some common sense. 195.157.64.196 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Buckby described himself as "conservative" and de-radicalized, and Baldet was briefly quoted in a way that provided no specific information. Where is the independent, third-party source that examines the totality of Buckby's recent statements and evaluates how de-radicalized he actually is? We're not "inclined to portray him in a negative light"; we're simply trying to judge what the available sources actually warrant us to say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Channel FOur is the independent third-party source. Regardless, the facts are there. He said himself that he believes things he has done and said are extreme. He wrote a book about the far-right and condemns the far-right. What do you want, headline news? That's not going to happen, because what he's talking about isn't shocking and newsworthy. So by your logic, Wikipedia should call him far right until the end of time, no matter what he does that shows that is not true. 195.157.64.196 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, your comment about Baldet isn't true. Baldet said that we should learn from Buckby's experiences, and that's why he met him. A representative of the government's Prevent programme would not praise a far-right extremist. That's just common sense now. There simply is no evidence that Buckby is still a far-right activist or commentator, and there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that his commentary focuses on counter-extremism issue. The only issue is that he isn't headline news anymore, because he doesn't get involved with sensationalist far-right politics.

That is a major flaw in how Wikipedia portrays him. By ignoring this, becase his work is no longer sensationalist and therefore not newsworthy, Wikipedia is misleading readers and wilfully misrepresenting a person by using out-of-date reports. If Buckby became a member of the Labour Party tomorrow and campaigned for social justice for the rest of his life, but it wasn't headline news, would Wikipedia still portray him as a far-right commentator? Think about it. 195.157.64.196 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Channel 4 is the platform that reported his first-person statements about himself. We're not asking for "headline news", just something — anything — substantial. Nobody has even ruled out using the Channel 4 video to support a statement like, "In a 2020 interview, Buckby described himself as 'conservative' but no longer radical" (see here for JzG suggesting similar phrasing). We've just all been around the block too many times to take self-descriptions as definitive. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Buckby is conservative not far-right

I think that the fact is this: Jack Buckby left the far-right in 2012. Now he's conservative but conservatice don't mean far-right or white suprematist. i think i know why some people call him far-right. Today leftists, hypocrital leftists consider far-right all people who have different opinion or political views. I think that in this society we have to focus on the Far-left because, as we can see on wikipedia, leftists are taking control, also on wikipedia the're arrogant and not impartial. The truth is that they consider Buckby still far-right for the reason mentioned above. they need a enemies, they need that all people who don't think like them are considered dangerous "far-right". i repeat this, i see in our society, and also on wikipedia that the dangerous, the extremists and violent undemocrat are on the Left political side. Please let Buckby in peace and if you want to do politics don't do it on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.102.162 (talk • contribs)

I think Buckby’s work with Ann Marie Waters, Liberty GB, Tommy Robinson, Rebel News etc etc was much after 2012. 2.26.180.118 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Channel 4 video has clips of him saying far-right things in 2016 (about three minutes in). XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Buckby set up the national culturists to make his far-right views more palatable. What he is doing now, grifting as a ‘reformed counter-extremist’ is the same thing. 2.26.180.118 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The use of the term "grifting" here is very telling. It looks like a personally very emotive thing for the person making the comment. The fact is that Buckby has admitted on Channel Four (in 2020) that things he said in C4 films from 2016 were extreme. He said that in his most recent appearance on Channel Four, and this year published a book about the far right. I see a lot of pondering on his past and zero acceptance of a person admitting fault and looking to explore why young men get drawn to the far right in the first place. It is very interesting that despite a wealth of evidence, nobody here appears willing to accept it because it isn't headline news on papers like The Guardian or the New York Times. 195.157.64.196 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a primary source. We can say in the body that he now renounces (or appears to renounce, or whatever) some of his previous views, but we do not change the overall characterisation until reliable independent secondary sources do the same. That's how Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's stronger than that per WP:BLPPRIMARY, isn't it? Primary material can supplement secondarily sourced material, but it is not a substitute for it. Ralbegen (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked him up on Twitter to see if he had shared reviews of his book, as authors tend to do. No such luck, but he's been complaining about this Wikipedia article, so concerns about off-site canvassing would be valid. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of (pretty much) SPA have showed up over this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't follow why material based entirely on an interview with the subject without supplement by third party reporting can be included per WP:BLPPRIMARY in light of WP:IV? Ralbegen (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It can but only as "but he has denied this". What it cannot do is be used to prove RS are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the policy basis for inclusion? WP:IV tells us that an interview subject talking about themselves is a primary source, and WP:BLPPRIMARY tells us Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. I can't see how these permit inclusion of material based entirely on an interview. Ralbegen (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Except the argument is not "we can include his denial" its "but this proves the accusation if false so we cannot include it".Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ralbegen, what Steven said (multiple times). It's an acceptable source for the fact that he gave an interview in which he appeared to repudiate his former views (good for him). It cannot refute sources that describe him as far-right, that requires newer independent sources that describe him as a former far-right blah blah. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

hypocrital far-left

why you continue to write your nonsense??. Unlike a lot of Far-left who don't acknowledge their violence and their extremism, Buckby acknowledge his past errors. I repeat, the fact is that the leftists in our modern society want to delete and shut up all right and conservative political side. They want to create a only leftist political society. And these shameful individuals are also on wikipedia, indeed on Wikipedia you can read on the page of Joseph Stalin that he was a "revolutionary and soviet politician" and then at the end they allow themselves to write that he was a dictator. Please at least have decency to don't lie, because people are not stupid. They see in the real life and also on wikipedia what the "liberal" leftist are. Buckby is surely less extremist than all leftists that criticize him on wikipedia.

Then why have no RS said he is no longer far-right? Anyone can claim to be anything they wish, that is why a person is not an RS for what he is. I could say I am Jack Buckby (and so's my wife) do you accept that as I have said it? Of course not, you would want more then my word for it, and it is the same here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not do breaking news. As soon as the change in Buckby's views is described by reliable third party sources, we will reflect that change. For now we have a single interview (a primary source), which we quote in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

we want to have a serious discussion or to bring politic on wikipedia?

Slatersteven, i know that when one person doesn't agree with you, you threaten him with a block on wikipedia, and this is undemocrat ;but you know the truth. Buckby is not Far-right, if you base your idea of Buckby on what some media(politically deployed) say and write, you will call him Far-right until his death, because as i wrote before that media have the task to denigrating and not of telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.154.80 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

NO, we base out articles on what third party RS write. We are not here to tell the truth, we are here to repeat what RS say. And no we are not a democracy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

to Slatersteven

This kind of answer worry me and must worry all, both the wikipedia admin and users. you're here for tell the truth and if you're not you can go home. And at least the fact that you say that wikipedia is not a democracy (when instead is a public and democratic platform) show that you're not very smart. I advise you to go to politics, so you can write untrue things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.154.80 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No we are not here to tell the truth, after all can you read Jack Buckby's mind to know what he really thinks?Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is this endless parade of identical demands being coordinated? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven what can do more Buckby?? he publicly denied his past and defined it a great error, he wrote a book that you can read for undesrtand what is his opinion now. If your reasoning is "we will never know what he really thinks and we will never know if he is truly repentant because we can't see in his mind or in his heart" you will call him a nazi until his death but you risk to accuse an innocent and he could sue you for defamation. if you don't believe that people can change and that they can have a second possibility, according to you all people that did mistake should be exterminated. I can't see into Jack Buckby mind but also you and all people who accuse him to be still a nazi can't see in it. I and other admin, we based our words on what Buckby said, on his book which is a clearly message against all kind of extremism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.154.80 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You get RS to say he has changed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

To Buckby's Twitter followers

Buckby makes two complaints:

1. That the article describes him as far-right despite an interview in which he repudiates his former far-rght position;
2. That his status as an "author and researcher" is omitted.

The responses are as follows:

1. We have included the interview, stating that in it he appears to walk back his previous positions. That is as far as we can go based on what we currently have, because interviews are affiliated primary sources and cannot refute independent secondary sources. To change the characterisation requires reliable independent secondary sources describing him as a former far-right activist.
2. In the same way, we do not use the existence of one or more books, especially autobiographies, to describe someone as an author. We need reliable independent secondary sources that describe him as an author - and typically they will not do that unless he has written more than one book, and normally not at all if his writing is entirely autobiographical.

Wikipedia is not here to fix real-world problems. If reliable sources don't describe someone as they would like, they should take it up with the sources, not with Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And the same goes for legal threats, send them to the sources we use.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

stop personal opinion

All sources tell us that Buckby is a former far-right and if you wait that a leftist journal or person acknowledge this, you will wait forever. Stop all ridiculus and political defamation. you can not base your opinion of Buckby on what people who hate him said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.154.190 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide one independent third party RS that says "former far-right". Please read wp:rs and wp:primary before answering.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Far right

Can we have one source that is not him or his relatives saying he is no longer far right?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop to delete my comments in this section, you're undemocrat, if you want to do politc go away from this discussion page.

https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/far-right-activists-find-common-cause-with-farage-over-migrant-invasion-of-britain-1.1066734

In this article Buckby is clearly describe as a former extremist, who have take distance from his previous political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.94.122 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Now thats a better source, not sure if its enough but its a start. But it does not say "former extremist" it says "repudiated his former views". The problem is it does not say what views (for example he still considers immigration an issue that needs dealing with). Nor does it say "no longer right wing" (let alone "FAR-RIGHT").Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Buckby is clearly former far-right, i repeat he also wrote a book about this sort of things. The fact that Buckby is still on the right political side, doesn't means that is an extremist, means only that he democratically has is own view of society. to be conservative don't mean to be far-right as to be moderate left don't mean far-left. I think is better to don't write "is a right winger political figure" because seems that you want to label him at all costs. If one political commentator or figure is jew you don't write "is a jew political commentator" or if another is labourist or on the left you don't write "is a leftist political commentator" because it sounds like a discriminatory brand. For this reason i prefer write only is a british political commentator, because don't matter his political side. If one person is interested about Buckby political opinion can follow him or watch his debates on tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.94.122 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if RS say he if far right so do we. It does not matter what we think of his views (read wp:or). Nor do I agree he is clearly former far-right, as it reads to me like he is far-right pretending to be a moderate in the hope of fooling people into supporting him, but that is why we do not allow what we think to inform our articles. So when you have a source saying he is not far right so can we, but it must say "no longer far right" or words to that effect (see wp:v). And stop staring new threads with every reply.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I know twitter is not a RS, but his recent tweets clearly demonstrate that he still holds far-right views. According to Buckby recently; racism in America is 'largely imaginary' https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1299408871199571969 ; a person's sexual orientation makes them a far-left extremist https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1279056747492147200 ; his views on Islam have not changed since his days with the BNP/National Culturists/Liberty GB https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1279189585671729153 .

It is no longer accurate to describe Buckby as a political commentator, he often asserts how he now hates politics - https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1297558091081420801 He is almost solely known for his far-right views and his wikipedia should reflect that. He has not done any meaningful counter-extremism work so it is also inaccurate to describe him as such. His book mainly attacks those who he considers the 'far-left' and skips over his far-right activities after leaving the BNP with Tommy Robinson, Liberty GB, Anne Marie Waters etc. I agree with how Slatersteven describes him; he is far-right pretending to be a moderate in the hope of fooling people into supporting him. 2A02:C7F:40E5:700:D9F6:6FD6:43AF:8D42 (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You are undemocrat far-left

First you're undemocrat because you blocked the page without motive, because your opinions are not supported by any sources and because you continue to delete my comments in talk, very far-left behaviour. secondly because you based your edit on your personal opinion. According to you, and this is in perfect leftist style, all people who are not on the left political side are fascist or far-right. Black lives matter is a criminal movement not because is for black freedom but because rioters destroyed cities, beated people and did a lot of wrong things. To be against illegal immigration doesn't mean to be far-right. Buckby, unlike a lot of leftists of today and probably also you who criticize him, has repudiated his extremists views in you can see this not only in the articles, or in his book, but also in the dialogue that he had with jeff schoep in schoep's youtube channel. Instead you, What have you done? you condemn antifa? or rioters? or Communists and far-left wing?? no because in your opinion it is always the right that must make self-criticism and never the left political side. In his book Buckby explain the truth, which are arrogant leftist who are contributing to create far-right, and we can see it in this wikipage, indeed you criticize him who made self-criticism but all of you didn't make self criticism on your political side. Instead of welcoming Buckby and being happy for him, you are pushing him back towards extremism again.

Posting demonstrably true facts supported by Buckby's own tweets is not "very far-left behaviour. There is no personal opinion here; Buckby is a right-wing figure and his twitter shows that. I'm not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. Not sure how BLM is relevant to this discussion. Not sure I brought up illegal immigration either. Can you provide a RS where Bucky has repudiated his extremist views? His book is not one, neither is an interview with Jeff Schoep, nor are the articles provided so far. Not sure what relevance antifa or rioters have to this discussion; it is a wikipedia article about a far-right figure. Whaataboutisms are not the best arguments to make. Welcome Buckby to what? Buckby clearly still holds far-right views, no one is pushing him to anything! 2A02:C7F:40E5:700:7177:9A4:F67C:854D (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And we are supposed to take this as an example of not being racist? Sorry we need an RS saying he is no longer far right.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2021

We appear to be once again at a stalemate.

People who presumably are not so fond of Buckby (I'm genuinely not a fan, but I feel as though I have an involvement with this page at this point) want to ensure that "far-right" is used in the very first sentence. The argument is that all the sources claim he is far-right, and that his own condemnation of the far-right is not good enough evidence that he is no longer far right.

Well, that is quite a stretch. By that logic, if Buckby is never written about in the media again, he will be defined by this for the rest of his life. Even if he attended an Antifa rally, for instance. It is nonsensical.

The consensus last time we reached this stalemate was that it is at least accurate to describe him as a "right-wing British political figure" as this is undoubtedly accurate, and to add that he was previously involved with those far-right groups. This is the most accurate description as Buckby has not been active in far-right groups for several years at this point.

We should try and avoid personal vendettas or feelings here. Let's be accurate. Rosswikieditor (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called wp:v, RS say it so do we. We need RS saying he is no longer far right, not him saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you have no RS showing he holds far-right views currently. That means Wikipedia is portraying false information. Since the Channel Four interview, where he was taken seriously by a leading figure in Britain's Prevent Strategy (government counter terror program), it is clear that he has distanced from the far-right. There are no RS showing he is currently far right. It is therefore inaccurate to claim this, but accurate label him right-wing and formerly active in the far right. Rosswikieditor (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is the RS proving Buckby is far-right after he wrote a book condemning the far-right, appeared on Channel Four condemning the far-right, wrote a research paper condemning the far-right, and appeared in multiple interviews - including with a former neo-nazi - condemning the far right?Rosswikieditor (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Most recent edit claims Buckby only criticizes the far-left, and that he cannot demonstrate he does not have far-right views. This is a lie.

Here is a book in which he criticizes the far-right (I read it): https://www.amazon.com/Monster-Their-Own-Making-Politicians-ebook/dp/B085FWR9Q4/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=jack+buckby&qid=1631133737&sr=8-1

Here is a research paper where he criticizes the far-right: https://www.amazon.com/Extremist-Opportunism-Covid-Economy-Springboard/dp/0987895443/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=jack+buckby&qid=1631133737&sr=8-3

Then there is the Channel FOur interviews. Interviews with former neo-Nazi Jeff Schoep.

Does Jesus need to come back from the dead and whisper it into your ears for you to accept it? Or is this page specifically dedicated to smearing someone that the editors apparently do not like? Rosswikieditor (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is Jack Buckby talking to a former neo-Nazi named Jeff Schoep, in which he repudiates the far right. Why, therefore, is he labeled a "far right" British political activist in this post? This is inaccurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4rAFxJIYqM Rosswikieditor (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

96.240.12.35

This user has repeatedly edited this page and made unsubstantiated claims.

The latest claim is that Buckby only criticizes the far left. I have provided links to:

- Book - Research Paper - Interview with Channel 4 News - Interview with former neo-nazi leader Jeff Schoep

and more, which all show that Buckby criticizes the far-right.

We must be clear about what is and is not true here. It is factually inaccurate to claim Buckby only criticizes the far-left - as much as it is factually inaccurate to claim that Buckby is currently far-right, which he is not. Rosswikieditor (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in Buckby’s book does he actually repudiate his far-right views. It is pretty much some story telling and then trashing left wing moderate views. In any case, an autobiography is not a verifiable source. Same with his research paper? Have you actually read these? Again it’s not a verifiable source but I’d be interested to see what quotes you can pick out from it where he actually says anti far-right statements. As opposed to claiming he isn’t far right to try and save his career. Interview again - not verifiable and he says he’s left the far right and said some of his views he looks back on and regrets. Key word is ‘some’ and he doesn’t actually say what they are. Jeff Schoep is still well linked to the American nazi party and his attempts to distance himself from the movement are to avoid legal liability. 2.26.180.32 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Lock Page

I think this page needs to be locked again. As is. Jack Buckby is a far-right figure. Other users have failed to provide any verifiable evidence to the contrary and are just constantly vandalising / edit warring. 2.26.180.32 (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Now the page is protected make a case here as to why he is no longer far right, note RS have to say he is not far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hi Jkaharper, as you can see from the above, there is a lot of background on this issue with single-purpose accounts and IP editors aggressively pushing the idea that Buckby is no longer far-right for a period of more than a year. There are no reliable sources that support this view. In your edit summary, you say that the article includes the text "Buckby said that he had repudiated his former extremist views and recognised their troubling nature": this is not the same as "Buckby has repudiated", it's not material that appears in the voice of an independent reliable source. A book that Buckby wrote is also not an independent reliable source. We have independent reliable sources that describe him as far-right, so that's what Wikipedia's voice should do rather than inventing a description wholesale based on Buckby's intended self-presentation. Ralbegen (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ralbegen:, I'm quite clearly not a "single-purpose account", I'm a Wikipedia editor of 15 years. I was watching him about an hour ago being interviewed on the news about his re-radicalisation and the book he's just published, and I searched him on Google and was surprised to see his page is outdated to about 2018. I would say the fact that he has published a book by a mainstream publisher about de-radicalisation and combatting the far right is evidence enough to say he's a former member of said movement. I think you should be more concerned about violating WP:BLP in claiming that somebody is currently a member of something when they're not. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We need RS (not him) saying he is no longer far right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to fill you in on some context for this particular content dispute, and I am very sorry if it seemed I was accusing you of being an SPA. I don't see how WP:BLP can possibly permit the reasoning that because somebody has decided to keep saying they're no longer far-right, we should alter our encyclopedia to suit them. WP:MANDY applies here, surely? We absolutely shouldn't accept self-sourcing for somebody to unilaterally launder their own reputation. Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to let this go. I think it's sad that some users wish to hold on to something when every source available in the last 24 months points to something completely different. It doesn't matter if it's by his own account, or his own book (again, printed by a mainstream publisher), political ideology is about one's own identity, as well as how others label you. It's evident he's no longer involved in these groups and distances himself from them. In terms of sourcing, good luck. You'll be waiting forever. It's not of the interest to the mainstream media when somebody is a former extremist, only when they're actively adhering to such views. Most older or former figures of the far right fade into obscurity so using what sources are available is key. I think we should take the following as evidence of a change in his direction:

• https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Monster-of-Their-Own-Making/Jack-Buckby/9781642934243 (the blurb here)
• https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Monster_of_Their_Own_Making/hxLUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jack+buckby+lancashire&pg=PT7&printsec=frontcover (intro and chapter one here)
• And additionally, the 2020 interview distancing himself, which is already cited within the article.

Do we have anything post-2018/19 which suggests he's still a figure of the far-right? Nope. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

is he a journalist and Author?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the source I just used in the article, yes, and yet you've stamped citation needed tags there. You really are a non-constructive editor out to antagonise others rather than build anything productive, aren't you? --Jkaharper (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are not RS, we need third party RS saying it. You have been here long enough to know that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to restate any of my points, but I am afraid I continue to find arguments that we should allow self-sourcing here not to be convincing. I also don't think that the Tameside Directory is a helpful source: it's an anonymous (?) directory that provides the disclaimer "Tameside Directory cannot be held responsible or liable for the accuracy, correctness, usefulness or reliability of the data." and gives no evidence of the sort of editorial oversight we expect from areliable source. Ralbegen (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)