Talk:Millennial Woes

Hope Not Hate

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.

---

I am concerned about a reference to a claim made by Hope not Hate. There is no consensus of the reliability of Hope not Hate, and given the context it would seem reasonable to consider Hope not Hate to have a bias. Contentious material about living persons that is not sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. The nature of the claim by Hope not Hate is very contentious and whilst it is made clear that the quote come from Hope not Hate it concerns me that such an unbias source that is lacking in reliability is referenced with regards to a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018‎

None of the claims are that contentious, and the materials from HNH is attributed to HNH, so it doesn't really matter if they're an RS so long as they're notable, which they are, per their WP article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I consider the claim that "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." to be highly contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I know someone who thinks "the sky is blue" is a contentious claim. What's your point? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was following on from my initial comment under this section, so let me reiterate and expand. claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas. Given the nature of the claim surely it would not be encyclopedic to reference a claim when the source is not regarded as a reliable source. I'm trying to address this neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas. You should probably try to actually do some research on this joker. Claiming he's a white supremacist sympathizer is not a contentious claim, either. He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. The fact that you personally object to it is completely immaterial. I object to the fact that the article Alt-right doesn't start with "The alt-right is a loose collection of fucking morons who..." but you don't see me whining about it there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it. This is what I am getting at, if reliable sources can be cited to support a statement then they should be included in the wiki page. Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia. You state "we have the reliable sources to prove it" where are reliable sources to accompany the statement "He recited the Fourteen Words as part of his speech." This is a question of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018‎

The article does not claim he recited the 14 words. The article claims that HNH reported he recited them. This information is WP:DUE because it it helps defines the public perception of the subject. The information is non-contentious because there are no sources -of any quality, much less reliable sources- denying that he said them. The information is accurate because it is properly attributed. Finally; I don't know where you get the notion that "Hope not Hate is not a classed as 'reliable' by Wikipedia." because except in rare circumstances, we don't "class" sources as unreliable. The two times HNH has appeared at RSN as the subject ([1] [2]), it easily escaped being classified as generally unreliable. It has no history of controversy, has a reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, and other features of generally reliable sources. I could make the case that attribution could be removed from this claim, and have it directly asserted in wikivoice as a fact that he stated the 14 words, and have far more evidence to support that case than you have to support the case that HNH is not a reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop going off on tangents, you seem to be getting very worked up about this. I am interested only in neutrality in regards to the aforementioned statement of this page. This is what concerns me about Hope not Hate. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (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.

Could someone point me in the right direction for the appropriate discussion page, regarding the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is not "appropriate discussion page" for an IP editor who refuses to engage honestly with other editors. Your concerns have been addressed. The fact that you don't like the answer is immaterial. If you continue to edit this page disruptively, I will seek semi-protection for it so you can no longer edit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been perfectly honest and forthcoming, for what reason do you consider my actions dishonest? It is not a question as to whether or not I like an 'like the answer' I have not received an answer to like or dislike in the first place! You have removed a comment that I have made on the talk page, you have been overtly rude and yet you're describing my activity as disruptive, yet my activity has been nothing of the sort. As I have previously stated, "claiming that someone has said the fourteen words is highly contentious, it suggests that someone is a sympathiser of white supremacist ideas" You responded "He absolutely is a white supremacist sympathizer, and we have the reliable sources to prove it." Your own opinions and research are not relevant, what is relevant is the reliability of the source, and I am concerned that the source in question 'Hope not Hate' cannot be considered reliable. And it seems that there is an essay on Wikipedia, which I already cited, which supports my concerns about the reliability of Hope not Hate. What on earth is unreasonable about any of my activity on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No you haven't. But in case you haven't figured it out: we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No I haven't what? You evidently do not want to address the matter at hand, instead you have just been disruptive and rude, perhaps I should I try and different approach to getting some answers.

Support For Slavery

Does he support slavery, though? I know of one video in which he was asked what his most extreme rightwing view is and he laughingly answered "I think maybe I'm in favour of slavery". I don't think you can call that support, though. The question was asking for him to say something outrageous and he laughed as he complied. Has he ever made an actual argument in favour of slavery? Certainly it's not a frequent topic on his channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.79.182.103 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rebel Media

I know left-leaning propagandists rely heavily on this smear tactic (along with intentionally conflating nationalism with supremacism), but in the interests of honesty and credibility this article should not refer to Rebel Media, a media organisation run by a Jew and with ehtnic minority presenters as "Alt-Right". I have no doubt you can cite Guardian articles refering to Rebel Media, Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage and even Theresa May (looking at you David Lammy) as Alt-Right, but as none of them are concerned exclusively (even at all) with the interests of people of European descent it does not qualify.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.253 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unemployed"

This line is a bit weird. Are intellectual property jobs not being counted anymore? He made, and has made thousands of dollars month on his various payment processors, and live streams. It just seems bizarre to state someone is "unemployed" when they make more money than many other British citizens. Way too much weight is given to that tabloid claim, and it should be cut from the article, no matter what other complains one may have of the person. Someone making 30-40k pounds a year, and paying taxes is far from unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:A149:C3DA:316E:4C74 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Some characterizations

• The Guardian, August 2019: "antisemitic white supremacist Colin Robertson – aka Millennial Woes"
• The Forward, December 2016: "'“Two or three years ago, I finally came to understand what is called the Jewish Question. That there are problems with the Jewish people,' said the Scottish blogger 'Millennial Woes'.... He said it was hard for him to come to terms with his anti-Semitism. 'I really didn’t want to become an anti-Semite. It’s like the biggest right-wing cliché,' he added."
• Christian Science Monitor, August 2017: "white supremacist"

Jlevi (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed these labels as he is avowedly neither of the two. He is not a white supremacist and does not believe that white people are inherently superior to other races or should dominate them, ever. Never has he argued or supported this. He has never spoken of any grand jewish conspiracy, but that Jewish groups tend to be on the vanguard of what he views as negative social changes in the West, which is true. This is supported by demographic opinion polls that show overt hostility towards White Americans amongst American jews, among other things. The articles are manufacturing negative labels on Woes and other members of the dissident right out of thin air, repeating them ad infinitum to achieve a Pavlovian response, then they're peppered over these articles in one grand POVPush smear using "reliable sources" that are not reliable nor have any actual proof of their accusations beyond the personal opinion of the journalist who wrote the article.

Goaway76 (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Serious Allegations

Robertson stepped away from political activism after various accusations of sexual harassment and assault were levelled against him. Other leaders in the far-right movement, such as Mark Collett and Jason Köhne, have stated that compelling evidence corroborates the allegations. In response to the controversy, Robertson released a statement stating that "A few of [the allegations] are true, [but] many are not", apologized for "letting people down," and stated that he intended to "take some time away to actively work on my personal failings."

In May 2020, Robertson stepped away from political activism after various accusations of sexual harassment and assault were levelled against him by far-right communities online. Other leaders in the far-right movement, such as Mark Collett and Jason Köhne, have stated that compelling evidence corroborates the allegations.

I have removed the above two sections from Colin Robertson’s Wikipedia page because they are contradicted by conclusive video evidence—i.e., evidence demonstrating that the Wikipedia article contains serious misrepresentations of the facts. In these videos, Collett explicitly affirms that the accusations of sexual harassment and sexual assault leveled against Robertson are untrue; Collett also repeatedly states that Robertson is an innocent man. Moreover, the passages in the Wikipedia article solely rely upon uncorroborated material (pertaining to serious allegations), and run the risk of breaching Wikipedia’s BLP policy (if they haven’t already). I have provided links to the aforementioned videos. I have provided details explaining why the aforementioned passages must be removed.

Firstly, there is clear and well-documented evidence—namely, two separate video streams from September 24, 2021, and December 28, 2021 —in which Mark Collett explicitly repudiates the notion that he ever affirmed or “corroborated” any of these allegations. On the contrary, video evidence clearly shows that Collett maintained, and continues to maintain, that Robertson is innocent. In the September 24, 2021, recording, for example, Collett says:

“It’s defamation at the highest order.” (52:20)

“You’re an innocent man. And for my part in it, Colin, I apologize for exacerbating any of your problems, and to find out what I have tonight, that she has made up rumors of you doing something like this, well, I’m lost for words.” (54:59)

In a “Millenniyule 2021” episode, dated December 28, 2021, Colin Robertson reiterates that all serious accusations are false:

“Last year accusations were made of a very serious nature against me by several women, and each of those women has since revealed herself to be dishonest, unreliable, [and] in one case quite insane. And so their testimony is not—as I think it wouldn’t be—taken seriously nowadays if what’s known now was known at the time. And due to misconstrued messages that were used by them to frame me, Patriotic Alternative believed, at that time, that it was a wise thing to put some distance between that organization and myself….At this stage, Wikipedia implies, and this is of concern to me for obvious reasons, Wikipedia implies that Mark believed me guilty of these things, sexual assault, sexual harassment; however, I want to make it clear that, obviously, he does not…”

To which Mark Collett responds, saying to Robertson:

“You are an innocent man.”

Secondly, the Wikipedia article’s misrepresentation of a particular statement by Colin Robertson is deeply concerning. The claim that Robertson’s remark—“A few of [the allegations] are true, [but] many are not”—constitutes an admission of sexual harassment or assault is simply erroneous. Robertson has categorically denied all sexual assault and harassment accusations. His May 1, 2021, Telegram post makes no mention of admitting to any such misconduct. By interpreting that statement as an admission of guilt regarding serious sexual claims, the article not only misconstrues his words, but also violates Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy.

Thirdly, if the above video evidence isn’t enough to warrant the removal of the above passages from the Wikipedia article, Right Wing Watch—whose single article is the sole source cited in the passages referenced above (an article that was published on May 5^th, 2020—and has never been revised or updated in light of the more recent statements from Collett)——falls under the “Hyper-Partisan” category with “Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues,” according to Ad Fontes Media’s Media Bias Chart (a non-partisan, media-watchdog group). Additionally, Right Wing Watch itself admitted in its coverage that it was “unable to corroborate” the claim and noted that Mark Collett “did not elaborate on details about the allegation.”

Fourthly, the passages in the Wikipedia article imply that Robertson’s apology for “letting people down” (and his stated wish to step away and work on his “personal failings”) amounts to a confession of sexual misconduct. Yet, more complete context—particularly from the December 2021 discussions with Collett—reveals that Robertson’s remorse pertains to general errors in judgment and lapses in communication, rather than any wrongdoing consistent with the accusations. Pessimistic Idealism (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

AdFontes is just a set of opinions pretending to be objective analysis. Wikipedia doesn't treat it as a reliable source, per WP:ADFONTES, and neither should anyone else IMO.

primary sources are not generally reliable for this kind of thing, and digging through years-old livestreams to find timestamps supporting a specific interpretation is a strong indication of original research. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.

Right Wing Watch is published by the People for the American Way which is ideologically opposed to organized white supremacy and the alt right. That doesn't make it inherently less reliable as a source. For comparison, any source which supports white supremacists and the alt right is inherently less reliable both in general and for this topic.

Hope Not Hate includes a useful summary of his current standing:

Colin Robertson, AKA Millennial Woes, is a far-right content creator from Linlithgow, West Lothian who became one of the most prominent figures in the British alt-right scene in the mid-2010s via his now-suspended YouTube channel. In recent years he had aligned himself with the Patriotic Alternative group, but was then distanced from that scene after a bitter fallout.

Since then he has had a radically diminished influence, although his annual “Millenniyule” series of live streamed interviews in December still draws some notable guests. His Twitter account, which was suspended in late 2018, was one of many far-right accounts to be reinstated in February 2023 following Elon Musk's takeover of the platform.[4]

Per this source, the "bitter fallout" had a lasting impact on his public activity, so the article should attempt to explain this situation. The wording was flawed, but completely removing this doesn't seem helpful to readers. Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Primary sources—such as videos, livestreams, or personal statements—must be handled carefully under WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR (No Original Research). However, you are overlooking the fact that WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources “may be used on Wikipedia…to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.” In other words, direct quotes from someone explicitly refuting or denying an accusation can be appropriate so long as they are reported accurately and neutrally.

In this instance, we have multiple, publicly accessible video statements in which Mark Collett explicitly says that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Colin Robertson are false, calling them “defamation” and stating, “You’re an innocent man.” Citing these direct quotes is not “original research” in the sense of interpreting data or offering an unverified conclusion; it is simply documenting an individual’s own words, much as we would cite a published interview. We do not need to “interpret” or “analyze” beyond stating Collett’s position. That is allowed under WP:PRIMARY.

Now, I understand why you might think that “completely removing” the passages might be unhelpful. However, the question is whether the material (as presented) misleads readers or undermines Wikipedia’s BLP policy. If the material is to remain, it seems necessary to incorporate a more nuanced description—i.e., stating that unverified accusations were made, that Mark Collett himself later publicly refuted them, and that Right Wing Watch was unable to corroborate them—then we might achieve a balance that respects WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The sections as originally worded did not do this. Pessimistic Idealism (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, you are overlooking the fact that... (not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe rethink your approach here...) I am not overlooking that fact. Cherry-picked links to white supremacist livestreams are only going to be reliable sources in a very, very small number of circumstances. Nothing here suggests that this is one of those circumstances. From the Right Wing Watch source, Collett is barely even relevant and shouldn't have been mentioned. Think of it this way: Why should readers care what Mark Collett himself says? In order to explain that Mark Collett refuted something, we would have to explain who Collet is and why his refutation is important. We cannot do that, because he isn't a reliable source and his refutation isn't important.

Köhne shouldn't have been mentioned either. Sources are free to seek comment from white supremacist podcasters and such, but for us to repeat that name without context is uninformative. Köhne is not a reliable source and appears to be even less directly involved and less noteworthy than Collett.

I've added a new explanation of this incident based on this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

References