This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Libertarianism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Jason Murdock (September 17, 2020). "Petition Calls for FBI to Investigate Active Pedophile Forum Where Members Openly Discuss Child Abuse". Newsweek. Ҥ (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat on the fence about whether inclusion of that information would clear WP:BLP. On the one hand, it's covered by a reliable source (and it's not as though Mr. Larson has a lot of reputation worth protecting). On the other hand, the linkage between Mr. Larson and that website, as described in the Newsweek article, is fundamentally speculative—the username is one that's been used by him in the past, the username claims an age and location that match Mr. Larson's, and...it seems very much like the sort of thing that he would do. But I don't think that that's enough to include that kind of negative information about a BLP, so I think I fall on the side of not including it. Steve Smith (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a review of WP:RSP informs me that, to my surprise, Newsweek apparently hasn't been a reliable source since 2013. That fact obviously fortifies my conclusion that this information ought not to be included. Steve Smith (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE "The charges were in relation to an alleged plot to kidnap a 12-year-old girl from California;" TO "The charges were in relation to an alleged plot to kidnap a 12-year-old girl from Fresno, California;" Kodr14ai (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Not relevant to the article. Per WP:NONAME identifying details of minors should be kept at the bare necessary minimum. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't threaten George W. Bush, it was Barack Obama. Also, I know there is another Nathan Larson who is a musician, but should we really consider this Nathan Larson a politician in the page's title since he is known to be a pedo and even admitted to being such? I'd say that convict would be the better word for it when it is decided that he is to remain in prison.HelloADoodleDown (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, he didn't actually specify. He said that he was going to kill the president, without giving a name. Given that he said it in December 2008, which president he was going to kill depended entirely on when he was going to kill the president; if he intended to do so before January 20, 2009, then he was threatening to kill Bush, while if he intended to do so after January 20, then he was threatening to kill Obama. Given that it's pretty clear that he was just engaged in idle threats, it may well be that he didn't even address his mind to the question of which president he was threatening to kill. Anyway, I've corrected the lede to match the body.

On the second point, see here. Of course, WP:CCC, and new developments can also justify new names, but he's been a convict for as long as he's had an article, and, notwithstanding that, consensus was that "politician" is the best disambiguator. Steve Smith (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are not too seldom also convicts, so "convict" would actually be less helpful as an identifier. Reminds me of one of my favorite conversations from Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent:

“We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?”

“Why?”

“It saves time.”

Regards SoWhy 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this Wikipedia article, and there was a link to a defunct website Larson made, suiped.org. Thinking that it was a link to a Wikipedia article about the website, I clicked on it, but it’s actually a link to the domain suiped.org. Whoever has editing permissions for the article, please remove this link so no one else makes the same mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B020:C42C:F914:5AC3:3689:8C53 (talk • contribs)

There is no link to suiped.org. The domain site is in non-hyperlinked text. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Nathan Larson grew up in Culpeper, Va., not Charlottesville.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathalaw (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

@Crossroads: Care to explain how my edit removes this fact? It contains the details, eg different Wikipedia accounts, and his ban. It just trims the excess material. We don't need 3-4 sentences detailing how he was blocked, then banned, then glocked. This may matter to Wikipedia editors, but it does not matter to readers. Simply saying he socked and was banned suffices. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This removed that he kept socking for years after he was banned. It also made it look like his ban was mainly for socking. "Different accounts" is also a watered down term for socking; these weren't legitimate alternate accounts. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, he was banned for socking. I cannot seem to find any ban discussion thanks to 2008 record keeping, though, and it's not linked on his user page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith it seems like you interacted with this editor a bunch, and dealt with various checkuser requests. Do you happen to remember what the ban was for, or know where the record for this would be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nearly as I am able to ascertain, the first indefinite block handed to one of his accounts was to User:Absidy, in February 2008; discussion of that block is visible on this version of User talk:Absidy. You will note that, at the bottom of the page, there was talk of a (disclosed) clean start as User:Obuibo Mbstpo. Most discussion of his Wikipedia accounts is found in the noticeboard archives under that easily-searchable name—here's discussion of what I believe to be the first indefinite block of that account. Following that, he commenced (continued?) his relentless socking, such that that indefinite block became a de facto ban; I don't think there was ever a formal ban discussion. Note that all of this pre-dated any knowledge of his pro-pedo advocacy, racism, etc. Note also that I don't believe that any of this has been covered by reliable sources, such that it would be suitable for inclusion in this article. Steve Smith (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that could be. We should probably be sure just to stick to the source. But we should still mention that he used it to "endorse his worldview" and what he did after the 2008 ban. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the source is incorrect then the argument that there's a distinction is made moot. Just because a source says it doesn't mean it has to be included, especially if it's not correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that I believe this may be User:Leucosticte who was ArbCom banned in 2012, and Foundation banned in 2015. His global locks were in 2015 after the WMF ban, so the way the article currently reads actually gives quite a poor picture of events and should be cut for that reason alone, if not as a matter of content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - he was socking on WMF wikis up until October of this year, and never really went away for long - Alison ^❤ 02:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but how does the superfluous material I removed represent that fact, and why does it need to be represented in the subject's article? If we were talking about practically any other site - assuming it is not core to the person's notability (which it isn't here) - we would not see it appropriate, as a matter of content, to include so much elaborate material on their banning. In the grand scheme of the world, I never saw ban evasion as an especially notable thing to do on the internet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD closed Keep with a suggestion to consider renaming. This is not a formal rename request but to query ideas before making a formal request. One idea is Nathan Larson (troll) as supported by sources and then refactoring the article into his exploits as a troll instead of the current simulacrum of a politician biography, which frankly is part of his troll and makes Wikipedia just as culpable as the press in raising his star. -- GreenC 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's a troll, and I'm not sure that's the consensus of sources either. I object a little to how we're using the Haaretz source more broadly here.

(criminal) may work - he has a conviction already so it's supported, and is facing trial in another. (paedophile) also seems to be supported by existing sources, and is the current shortdesc. Depends which you think his lasting notability is. Though reading the article now, one would say he's most notable for his political views. So there's also the argument that we should retain this title for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A troll might threaten to burn down your house to get a reaction from you. If they actually burn down your house, they're not a troll, they're an arsonist. Mo Billings (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Larson (activist) is a more NPOV description of what Larson does, however vile his advocacy. "Troll" is name calling, and putting "criminal" in the article title puts undue weight, especially since Larson has not yet been convicted on the most serious charges. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like (activist). --Enos733 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was also going to suggest (activist). I originally created the article at (political candidate) and objected to its being moved to (politician) because he had never been elected. His runs for office had put him over the top in terms of notability (I believe there are deleted autobiographies, but am unsure what they were called), but the basis for his notability has broadened since his arrest. I did not and do not support (criminal) because of that earlier wave of news coverage and because he has yet to go to trial on the new charges. (Since the Haaretz source has been mentioned, I had originally objected to its being used at all, and do not believe his history on WMF sites should be mentioned in the article; even if that were not so, I would oppose (troll) on multiple grounds: BLP, clarity, sourcing). Yngvadottir (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - given there's a pending criminal case, I'm super reluctant to see (criminal) being applied, even though he has previously been convicted of a Federal crime. It may be seen as potentially prejudicing his upcoming case in the public eye, or that of the jurors; trial by media - Alison ^❤ 01:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm good with activist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (advocate) or (activist) as essentially meaningless terms in the modern political landscape. Basically everyone notable in Northern Virginia is also an activist of some kind. I think that if (politician) or (political candidate) are inappropriately descriptive, we might just buck against the WP:NCPDAB/WP:INITS convention and just go with Nathan Daniel Larson. It's not expressly prohibited and it provides a way out given this is someone notable for things we probably shouldn't disambiguate by. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the IP (and, somewhat unrelatedly, with Alison). Support renaming to Nathan Daniel Larson. Steve Smith (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (public figure). The problem with "activist" is that a good half of his notability or more is as a person convicted of threatening the President and being accused of kidnapping someone, rather than as activist. He's not really notable as an actual activist anyway, he's more notable as a clickbait _______ (but we can't use that of course). "Nathan Daniel Larson" does let us avoid a decision, but he's not ever referred to that that way -- he's not Edward Everett Hale or whatever, so now we're just making stuff up (it is a reasonably common practice here tho, just one I don't personally go for). But he really is notable just for being in the news, famous for being famous, we can't really use (famous person) and so I guess "public figure" fills the bill best.

FWIW (and it's not worth much IMO, we decide these things), I looked at our 30 sources in the article and added 5-6 others, looking at how they introduce the person in the article, usually in the headline or the lede paragraph. Of course most used more than one term -- If the headline said "Rape and incest advocate arrested..." that counts as 1 for rape, 1 for incest, and thus 2 for "sex stuff" -- so the numbers might be a little funny. Anyway, the totals I got were

• political stuff 13 (white supremacist 6, Hitler fan 2, marijuana legalization advocate 1, libertarian 4)
• candidate stuff 18 (current candidate [at the time article was written] 14, former candidate 3, frequent candidate 1),
• sex stuff 24 (pedophile or pedophilia advocate 18, plus 6 more for rape advocate or incest advocate).
• crime stuff 14 (felon threatener of President 6, accused kidnapper 8)
• accountant 6, and 1 each for "student leader" and "Wikipedia troll" Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the most reasonable disambiguation here is "political candidate". The media reports on Larson's controversial views and past conviction exist because he was running for office. If not for his candidacies he would not be notable. Mo Billings (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The last RM (correctly imho) ended with the move to the current name because "politician" encompasses "political candidate" per our own definition of the word (since holding any office is not required to be called a politician). So that's 31 for political activity, 55 if you consider his advocacy a political platform. After all, Adolf Hitler was per our article a " politician" as well. Holding abhorrent views will make one a despicable human being but it does not disqualify one from being a politician. So from all the possible descriptors, the current one is imho the most NPOV. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SoWhy: Thanks for the link to that earlier discussion. If a failed political candidate is considered a politician, then I favor leaving the name as is and I'm a bit confused about why we are doing this at all in light of that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, interest having dropped off in this thread, let's see..

• Activist, 4
• Nathan Danial Larson, 2
• Troll, 1
• Criminal, 1
• Public figure, 1
• Political candidate, 1

I suppose the WP:RM should go with "activist". (I'd snark that when you, I don't know, can't remotely figure out what a person is or does it's maybe natures way of telling you to rethink having an article, but that ship sailed. If we honestly and truly wanted to be accurate and best inform the reader, we'd probably go with Nathan Larson (train wreck) or Nathan Larson (target of pearl-clutching) or Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article). But nevermind that: "activist" seems the obvious way to go.) Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa whoa...when I !voted, "(person who has a Wikipedia article)" wasn't yet on the table. That's clearly the best option. Steve Smith (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in. But in that case the article should be moved to Meta-Wiki I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Alison, I strongly oppose "(criminal)". Drmies (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to revert this edit. We should forthrightly call his "different accounts" what they were - sock puppet accounts - rather than a POV euphemism. We should say he used them to promote his worldview as a whole, not just the vague "positions such as...". And lastly, we should mention that he kept coming back after his 2008 ban. It is wrong to imply that ban was the end of the matter. That Wikipedia is subject to banned users such as this coming back and continuing to be a problem is highly noteworthy and should not be WP:CENSORed.

All this is reliably sourced: Larson was initially banned from Wikipedia in 2008, when Barack Obama was first running for president, and in the years that followed, he hid behind a string of fake usernames to push his worldview....In the following nine years he created a web of over 50 fake usernames – “sockpuppets” in Wikipedia terminology – which he deployed across a number of Wikimedia-sanctioned projects, among other online sites. Using names like “Sarsaparilla,” “Leucosticte,” “Tisane,” “Obuibo Mbstpo” and “Libertarian theories,” he created and edited numerous articles, some of which even exist today. [1] The entire source talks at length about his Wikipedia activity. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Indifferent as to "sockpuppet accounts" vs. "different Wikipedia accounts", but the Haaretz source doesn't support i. that he has been banned from all Wikimedia platforms (though I acknowledge that, in fact, he has), ii. that his advocacy of his offensive views (whether online or offline) was the source of any ban. On the latter point, the only comments the article makes about the reasons for his bans from anything Wikimedia-related (as distinct from non-Wikimedia wikis, which are also discussed at some length) are "where someone whose positions are so abhorrent and rhetoric so violent they are banned from editing Wikipedia" (which obliquely suggests a link between advocacy and his ban, even though his ban from Wikipedia, as distinct from other Wikimedia wikis, had nothing to do with such positions or rhetoric), and "However, he was too radical for even the most inclusive of Wikipedia’s inclusionists, and by 2008 he was banned, initially for short periods, and then for life" (which suggests that it was his rabid inclusionism that led to his bans, which is also false). So, in summary, the source gives no account of his reasons for being banned from all Wikimedia wikis (because it doesn't even indicate that he was banned from all of them, and also of course because the WMF hasn't ever stated the reasons for the ban, or indeed tied the ban to Nathan Larson the person), and suggests without directly stating two reasons for his ban from Wikipedia, both of which are inaccurate. The current wording is fine. Steve Smith (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support using the term “sockpuppet” rather than “different Wikipedia accounts” since that’s where we’re linking and what the source uses. The latter phrasing is too innocuous to capture the sense of deceptive use that sockpuppetry entails. Neutral on the other stuff. I don’t think we critically require a high quality source for the fact that he’s banned, though for BLP compliance this would be a best practice. I’m not up to date on how we handle writing about on-project stuff, whether we can cite the project for uncontroversial statements of fact. That he’s been banned is uncontroversial, and for that matter, incontrovertible. The reasons for banning require clear sourcing for BLP compliance. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in substance. Mostly per Steve Smith, my comments above, and Yngvadotti. Further, the content is not verifiable, and it is unnecessary detail. Ban envasion is not a notable thing to do on the internet, and the fact that only one source seems to cover this (a source, mind you, that also calls the subject a "troll", which seems dubious and doesn't seem to be used by any other source, hence I'm not sure how this is highly noteworthy). WP:RSP says "generally reliable" not "treat as gospel in all cases, even when they have it wrong". That said, I'm okay with using the "sockpuppet" term. Ban evasion on the internet is not a notable thing to do. If this were any other side, we wouldn't have included any of this in the article at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, I'm not sure that "sockpuppet" should be used. To a lot of Wikipedia editors it's part of a mileu which is water to a fish, but I'd guess it's an unfamiliar term to a fair subset of our readers. Yes you can wikilink, but using wikilinks is supposed to be for deeper information, not a requirement to understand the sentence. Better would be to define the term right there, but that interrupts the flow of reading a bit. That's not a big deal, but it's not ideal. Also, I don't know if it is slang, but it is a bit informal at least. Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the infobox have that as his name? Did he legally change his name? If he did, do we have a source for that? Otherwise, maybe we should revert it to Nathan? Or if this is some kind of nickname, Nathan "Lathan" Larson, if such a nickname is actually an encyclopedia-worthy fact about him. Mr248 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr248: I assume it was just a typo. I've fixed it. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it's {{short description|American perennial candidate, pedophile, white supremacist, and convicted felon}}. I'd assume many of the considerations mentioned above apply here as well. Cheers, gnu57 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire short description for now. Really all of these things, particularly the part I redacted, absolutely and totally cannot be written down without 1) a good ref right next to the statement, and 2) a good reason.

Remember, talk pages are as free to be spread around the internet as articles. In fact (oddly IMO, but whatever) the Foundation not only expects this but encourages it, I believe. Thus talk pages are subject to the same strictures as article pages.

I'm not even sure his conviction was a felony conviction. Probably, but he only served 14 months. Couple other things: the redacted term is an internal psychological states. It's not 1984 and internal psychological states are not yet illegal. Actions can be -- doing stuff, and saying stuff. But for fraught stuff like this, we want take special care to be precise in our terms.

And HuffPost is mediocre source. It is not an acceptable source for highly inflammatory statements. I intend to look into that and maybe remove it when I get to it.

And we generally do not mention actions that have as yet resulted in only arrests or indictments rather than convictions. Per WP:BLP:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

And note that the lede for our article public figure is

A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.

Larson's not a public figure in my book. We should not be talking about stuff for which he has not been convicted. We are not Mandrake the Magician and we don't know what kind of plea bargains or dropped charges or botched prosecutions lie in the future. This is not a hill I'm going to die on, but doesn't make me wrong.

Look. I don't like the guy, at all. But WP:BLP is a really really important rule and we have to follow it without fear or favor. The spirit of the rule is "Look. We are very powerful. For a lot of people, our article is their public face -- the highest google result, or very high up. And our database may be in play for a century or more, long after news articles and so forth have faded into obscurity. We're powerful, these are individual mooks. How about we leave them alone."

And there's no "But I really hate this guy" clause or "But he deserves it" clause or "Everybody else is dumping on him, why shouldn't we" clause in WP:BLP.

Consider this whole affair an opportunity to reflect more on BLP, and that with great power comes great responsibility. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus I feel like we've already had this discussion. We can call Nathan Larson a [redacted] because reliable third party sources refer to him as a [redacted] and they do it based on what he himself has said. Those sources are in the article, so don't even think of asking me for links. I can do it here on the talk page or anywhere else in Wikipedia that I choose to without violating WP:BLP because of that. I have the impression that this article embarrasses you for some reason. I don't care to know why, but it is time for you to step away from before I request that you are topic banned due to your pattern of interference. Mo Billings (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this talk page is -- or can become -- an absolutely and entirely different entity from the article. It just can. Anything you write here can be taken put anywhere. You can't say "Nathan Larson is a [redacted] and oh there are references somewhere". And also if you say really inflammatory stuff about a person, you need to have the refs right there so that other editors can vet them, not have to go pawing around to find them.

Come on, User:Mo Billings. It's tiresome to have to edit your posts and it'd be even more tiresome to follow you around getting your stuff oversighted, which really should be done.

You did not have to use the terms you used to above to make your case. You chose to. You seem to be pushing to demonstrate a point that on the Wikipedia editors ought to be free to say whatever they want about whomever they want and hand-wave about some refs existing somewhere else. But they can't. Maybe they should be (I don't think so, but who knows). But they aren't now.

If you want to change the clear language of the the important policy WP:BLP, the very first sentence of which is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original), then take it up at the talk page of that policy, and good luck with that. You won't get far, and I think that tells you something.

WP:BLP then soon goes on to say "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source".

Inline citation. Not "oh, a reference in a different place, maybe on a different page or someplace, whatever". Inline citation. If I was just just being a scold about some technical way the rule is worded and/or cherry-picking some phrases and avoiding others to win a point -- you do see that -- you'd have a case. But I'm not. Even if the rule didn't exist this is not a path we want to be going down.

I'm not even sure what sources in the actual article are for the inflammatory accusation, but it better not be just HuffPost. WP:BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". It says to be very firm and I aim to. HuffPost is probably OK for anodyne day-to-day stuff like birthdates and offices held and whatnot. For basically the most inflammatory and defamatory thing you can say about a person, no. I don't have confidence that their independent fact-checking operation is extremely robust, and I don't have confidence that they won't slant, spin, and cherry-pick stuff for either business or ideological reasons. If it was Der Spiegal, that'd be different. I haven't had the time energy or interest to vet the statement in the article yet, but somebody had better.

Sorry, but I'm particularly sensitive to all this. I had to be educated about this myself, the hard way. But educated I now am. Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]