Talk:Nathan Larson (criminal)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 26 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus that "politician" is better than the proposal, and no alternate suggestions have gained consensus either. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Nathan Larson (politician) → Nathan Larson (public figure) – Whatever he is, he's definitely not a politician, having never held office, worked for someone who held office, run for office as a viable candidate, worked in a electoral campaign, worked in a political think tank, or (AFAIK) studied Political Science in depth. What the new article name should be it a tough one, as he's hard to pin down. Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#Rename article, above, has a lively discussion of this. My vote is for (public figure), but a different consensus may arise here, and fine, as long as the article is moved to something else. Herostratus (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Public Figure as nominator (don't count me twice!). I don't think he's very notable at all, but if he is going to have an article, the somewhat vague "public figure" seems to cover a broader range. After all, if he is notable, he's kind of famous for being a train wreck you can't look away from. But "train wreck" or "clickbait" isn't really acceptable.
There's not exactly one thing he does that makes him notable. Other possibilities include "activist", "white supremacist", "perennial candidate" or "political candidate" (he's not, even though the lede says that; he's run for office twice, nine years apart), and others. We could weasel out with "Nathan Danial Larson", but he never goes by his middle name and it's not a service to the reader to play "hey, you figure out what what he is". Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Larson's actions making him a public figure fall under the general term of activism. Nathan Larson (activist) is concise, accurate and NPOV. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Amending comment to general oppose. While less than ideal, "politician," as a person who engages in political agitation, is a factually accurate label. Okay with politician/activist/advocate or some other NPOV synonym, but not convinced a page move will really improve things. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, but are you supporting keeping "politician" then? Or would you prefer something else? Even if not, maybe you have a second choice in case "politican" loses out? (And yes I know there was a previous discussion, but this a formal Request for Move which should decide the matter I guess.) Herostratus (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a formal discussion is any more likely to work than the informal discussion. Lacking a clear alternative, I would stick with politician. If somehow a consensus develops here to rename it to something else, that's fine with me. Mo Billings (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Page views are an important data point, but not the only one. Looks like the musician may have at least equal long-term significance as he is far more accomplished and actually important than this guy. So I can't see either being considered the primary topic. Herostratus (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
An RM from 3 months ago found consensus for no primary. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Politician" (or, as some sources have it, "political candidate") is the most accurate label. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support some sort of move, as the current title is giving more worth than is due. "(Failed politician)"? Am only being partly facetious; "public figure" is the next least worst option. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ′′′Delete′′′. Alternatively how about Crimes of Nathan Larson or Nathan Larson (offender). Quite clearly this is a walking hate job on someone whose coverage is all negative and while they genuinely may not have any redeeming qualities, they are not really significant enough that we should host a BLP that proclaims to the whole world what an utter unredeemably bad person he is. Spartaz Humbug! 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spartaz: I'm surprised to an admin injecting such an unhelpful comment into a rename discussion. If you don't like the policies, why are you an admin? Mo Billings (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Its poor form to use delete rational in a move discussion. I don't care that they are an admin, we are all human, but the comments above serve to derail the process by introducing doubt as to voters motives. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Whoa there pilgrims, User:Spartaz is spot on and "If you don't like the policies, why are you an admin?" way out of line and has nothing to do with what the editor wrote, nor were they speaking or acting as as an admin. Nobody's questioning anyone's motives here. Wow talk about going down a dark path in hurry. And I mean the article was put up for deletion, on the argument that since it's a walking hate job (it is!), it's really a violation of the at least the spirit of WP:BLP. That argument didn't carry the day, but it's reasonable.
Let's not worry about that now. The editor dd say a move to "Crimes of Nathan Larson" or "Nathan Larson (offender)" were the least-worst solutions if/since deletion isn't on the table, which is entirely reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It's been nominated for deletion twice and kept both times. The simple fact is that this article is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules or policies. The article isn't the problem. If you don't like the article, blame the policies that allow it to be here. Alternatively, blame the community that allows it to be here. Either of you is welcome to continue this discussion on my talk page. Mo Billings (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unhelpful comment: I still kind of like Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article), per Herostratus's suggestion of a few months ago. Beyond that, I have no well-developed views; I don't agree that "politician" is inappropriate because he's never held elected office (that's not core to the word's definition), but I do acknowledge it's not ideal because it doesn't capture the entirety of his reasons for notability. "Public figure" is accurate, but is so vague as to describe about 97% of people with Wikipedia articles (which is still short of the 100% captured by "person who has a Wikipedia article"). "Activist", while superficially NPOV, seems pretty white-washed—akin to describing Jim Jones as a "clergyman". I'd support Nathan Daniel Larson, though I acknowledge that that would run afoul of WP:MIDDLENAME (though I really don't think it should). In sum, I have nothing to contribute. Steve Smith (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. I didn't want to suggest it because... well, we'reveryvery seriousandimportantpeoplehere, but count me in. Here are three good an compelling reasons why this would be a good name:
  1. Believe it or not, it actually is the most accurate title. The guy is just not very notable. Unlike almost every other person that has a an article here, this guy's #1 claim to fame, his most notable achievement, really is that he got himself a Wikipedia article. And to the extent he's remembered 100 years from now, it'll be for that.
  2. It's good for an organization to have -- and demonstrate -- the ability to poke a little gentle fun at itself. It's functional and healthy. It's kind of a dumb article to have, but oh well that happens, but we don't have to be stuffed shirts about everything that happens here.
  3. It'd be awesome. Come on, you know it would. It might even get into a news story, and it'd be an amusing story that would reflect well on the project. Herostratus (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
If you moved it there tomorrow, you'd probably get away with a warning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A politician is, by our own article on the subject, any person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected seat in government. [...] Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution or organization (emphasis added). The requesting editor based this request on a definition of "politician" which as such does not exist. I would also point to the RM that led to the current name which has more reasons why the current qualifier is correct, especially the precedent of other perennial failed candidates who are nevertheless referred to as politicians by this encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Public figure/person who has a Wikipedia article means about the same thing, too inclusive. "Politician" is better in IMO, but activist/advocate are possible. Would "felon" be against policy? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No. We have Category:Criminals, very well populated. However, the article names (if disambiguation is required) usually specify the crime, e.g. William Williams (murderer) not William Williams (felon) and so on. Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • NPOV applies to article titles as well as content. The crime he has been convicted of so far is not defining, and "criminal"/"felon" gives undue weight. His advocacy, political agitation, activism and trolling more generally define what he does, however foul his cause. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes I mean we can't use "felon", and looking through the article I see that he hasn't even been convicted of anything except threatening the President for which he served 14 months. He hasn't been convicted of any other crime and might not be, even though we have a lot of material on it (this is a WP:BLP violation, but whatever). So, supposing it was a defining characteristic, it'd have to be Nathan Larson (President threatener) or something. But its not. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
If we wait a little maybe it can be Nathan Larson (the one in prison). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"Troll" actually exist: Stephen French (troll). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"Troll" does not really apply anyway. As loathsome as Larson's beliefs and ideas are, there is scant evidence he spouted them in order to troll people. Regards SoWhy 13:31, 31 March 2021 (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.

The short description

Currently it's {{short description|American perennial candidate, [redacted], 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)

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)
Herostratus I feel like we've already had this discussion. We can call Nathan Larson a pedophile because reliable third party sources refer to him as a pedophile 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)
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)
I used the word "pedophile" only and solely because that is the word used in GenericUsename57's original post but which you redacted. Then you redacted my use of the word pedophile in my response. If you have an issue, please take it to ANI instead of doing this. Mo Billings (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I've re-redacted my own comment. I agree with Herostratus's BLP concerns. gnu57 21:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Larson is dead

I tried editing the page on wikipedia after Nathan Larsons death on the Sept 18 2022, but Wikipedia did not accept this edit. Very weird! 78.41.121.211 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because it was not accompanied by a reliable source and thus not verifiable. If you can provide us with a source for this information, we will make the necessary changes. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.freespeechtube.org/v/18Pn not confirmed 46.24.26.231 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is user-generated content on a site that has no editorial oversight; someone uploaded that description to the site the same way you would upload to a blog. It's not a reliable source especially for a WP:BLP; if we're going to make a claim like that on an article of a (until proven otherwise) living person, the sources must be reliable, high quality sources. The only thing that site verifies is that someone uploaded an unsubstantiated claim to a website, it doesn't show anything beyond that. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
https://omecasestatus.maricopa.gov/
ADVANCED SEARCH:
Case Status
Case Number:
2022-09737
Last Name:
Larson
First Name:
Nathan
Middle Name:
Daniel
Sex:
Male
Date of Death:
09/18/2022
Manner of Death:
Pending
Medical Examiner Report Ready:
No
Primary Cause of Death:
Pending 46.24.26.231 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
That's better than the WP:USERG the other IP mentioned, but I have to ask, how would someone being held in a Fresno County, California jail end up in a Maricopa County, Arizona OME? They extradited him to Fresno County so I can't imagine they'd be quick to move him, and all of his most recent court appearances appear to have still been in Fresno County, California. A quick LinkedIn search shows 60+ Nathan Larsons, including at least one in Maricopa County, so it's not impossible that another Nathan Larson had the same middle name and died. I know it seems like I'm being a stickler here but this is a WP:BLP article so we can't make assumptions or go "yeah that's good enough" for sourcing; if the article is going to say that this individual is deceased, we need a reliable source that unambiguously says that he is deceased. "Someone with that name died in another part of the country" is not enough. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. You're right. 46.24.26.231 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
So just to update, it may actually be the same Nathan Larson, as he was moved to Mesa, Arizona for health reasons. With that in mind it's very possibly the same person, but we need a reliable source to be sure. If it is the same person I have no doubt that reliable sources will cover it in some aspect, perhaps when the OME releases their findings, but we need to get it right the first time on a WP:BLP if we're going to state that they are deceased. I will keep looking for sources in the meantime. - Aoidh (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The U.S. Attorney's Office has dismissed all charges against Nathan Larson. I think the fact that he is no longer awaiting trial should at least be reflected in the article, at least. He is probably dead. NATOisawesome (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit was made and the content placed in the article a couple of hours before you commented. - Aoidh (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure more sources will also be available, but this was added to this article so my concerns are satisfied. - Aoidh (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hm, wonder what killed him. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
"Excited delirium" maybe. At any rate, an end to our contentious WP:BLP issues with this a article, WP:BDP is now the controlling policy. Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus and Herostratus: the OME report in the link above gives "Complications of Protein Calorie Malnutrition and Wernicke’s Encephalopathy" as the cause of death. Not sure if that's worth including in the article given that no other sources that I could find have reported on it aside from the OME itself. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. "Protein Calorie Malnutrition" sounds like "starved to death".Wernicke encephalopathy is apparently caused by a vitamin deficiency. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A couple ideas

First, regarding the portraits in this article: I believe policy states that, while the article subject is living, we should represent them with the most recent pic; but once deceased, we should use the image from the most relevant period of their life. Since his political foray seems to be what he's most notable for, it seems to me that we should move the 08 campaign photo up to the sidebar, and move the mugshot down to Legal Issues. Of course, I'm assuming that politics > legal issues in terms of Notability, which seems to be the case (correct me if I'm wrong).

Secondly, the article states that he formerly edited WP, before getting permabanned (from here and then later from life itself). The RS that supports this, [https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-06-14/ty-article/.premium/this-hitler-loving-pedophile-running-for-u-s-congress/0000017f-e5e1-dc7e-adff-f5ede6500000] mentions a few of his handles directly. I was wondering, would it be appropriate to mention his usernames in the article? I'm not sure if there's a policy on that, and how that might be affected by relevant issues (being blocked, no longer BLP, etc).

To summarize, I'm thinking of moving the portraits to account for this no longer being BLP, and wondering if it's allowed/appropriate to mention his WP usernames in the text. Xcalibur (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and swapped the photos/captions; feel free to revert & reprimand me if this is in error. I won't put the usernames for now, it's not strictly necessary, just wanted to put it out there. Xcalibur (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no way to make a case that this person was notable as a politician. If that were their claim to notability, the article would be speedily deleted. Virtually all of their notability arises from their criminal activities. Wes sideman (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The article focuses just as much on his politics as his charges/convictions, if not moreso. Also, you just moved the page from Nathan Larson (politician) to Nathan Larson (criminal); the former title led me to believe that politics came first. Also, the sources cited are full of references to politics alongside the legal offenses. Are you sure you're being neutral about this, and don't have an WP:AXE to grind? Speaking for myself, I randomly found my way here, and I'm not too familiar with the rather unfortunate subject of this article. Xcalibur (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Complete mischaracterization of the article. It may be true that the article focuses on his views as much as his convictions; that can be referred as his "politics", I suppose, but it certainly doesn't focus on his "career" as a politician, which is virtually non-existent. He garnered near-zero support in two elections that he tried to compete in. In a third election, he didn't even get to election day. His notability comes primarily from his crimes and convictions. If it weren't for those things, there would be almost no coverage of him in reliable sources. Wes sideman (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
There was a period in which a lot of the coverage of him was focused on his extremist political views. That's not politics in the career-politician sense, but it is politics in the broader sense in which extremist groups (alt right, neo-Nazi skinheads, KKK, etc) are a form of politics even if they (thankfully) have zero hope of winning any election. So, in that sense he was notable as a politician of sorts. There was another period in which coverage of him was focused on his child custody case, in which he admitted pedophilia and a desire to molest his own daughter–but that wasn't committing a crime (he never got the chance), simply an expressed desire to commit one. He was notorious for a bunch of different things, only the first of which (threatening to kill the President) and the last of which (abducting a minor) were actually crimes, and all the stuff he was notorious for in-between were socially odious but not actually criminal. Hence I worry "(criminal)" is too one-dimensional. "Nathan Larson (extremist)" would probably be more true to what he was actually notorious for. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
And by the way, Xcalibur, I just took a look at your talk page. This article is about a guy who, when he was arrested, was found to be operating "a website encouraging pedophilia and child rape." His notable views involve "decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest." Doesn't the topic ban that ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) imposed cover this article? Wes sideman (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's under the contentious topic of post 1992 US politics, which is all clear for me, as are the related wikiprojects. There may be details within this article that are off-limits, but I'm being careful not to discuss those. An example from TBAN: weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not; I should be covered by that, correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, that makes sense, but he doesn't seem like an especially notorious criminal or gangster. It seems to me that he's NOTABLE because he's an obscure politician who also faced serious charges/convictions; it's those two things combined that create NOTABILITY. On those grounds, you could put the political aspect first. Xcalibur (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
When you're dealing with an article that is categorized in Category:Pedophile advocacy then you can assume the article is off limits. Testing the edges around a topic ban seldom works out well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't even notice that, my apologies. I'll step away now, and let other editors take over if they wish. I've pretty much said my piece, and ultimately it's not that significant. Xcalibur (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to put a bow on this politician vs. criminal discussion: there are 40 references and they tell you all you need to know. He first ran for office in 2008. There are exactly 2 sources that discuss that candidacy that aren't just a straight election-result stats page. Once his convictions started happening, watch out - all kinds of coverage of his crimes, arrests, indictments, etc. The political races, if mentioned at all, are an afterthought in those articles. Wes sideman (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Wes sideman: As I mentioned above – I agree that "politician" isn't a good term to describe him. But I don't think "criminal" is the best disambiguator either, since there was a lot of stuff he was notorious for which while odious wasn't strictly speaking a crime. How about Nathan Larson (extremist)? It is better than "(criminal)" because he wasn't just some garden-variety criminal like a drug dealer or a bank robber, he was a political extremist (white supremacist, misogynist, pro-pedophilia, etc) and his criminality was directly connected to his political extremism. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@SomethingForDeletion: Either is fine with me, but if you made me vote on it, I'd stick with "criminal". Wes sideman (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (criminal) → Nathan Larson (white supremacist) – This article originally had the title "Nathan Larson (politician)". User:Wes sideman moved it to current title with justification "Far more notability as a convicted felon than as a politician". I disagree with that move, and disagree with the justification – Larson was only ever convicted of a single felony (threatening the President), and if that was all he ever did, he would never have gained anywhere near as much notoriety. Of course, he was very likely to have been convicted of further felonies (over abducting a minor), if he hadn't (effectively) committed suicide while awaiting trial. But, I still don't think "criminal" is the best disambiguator, because he was notorious for a lot of stuff which wasn't criminal as such. One major source of his notoriety was his political campaign, in which he had no chance of winning, but the outrageous extremism of his views got him media attention–running a hopeless political campaign based on extremely odious political views is not a crime. Another major source of notoriety was the custody case, in which he lost custody of his daughter due (in part) to his expressed support for pedophilia – however, as repulsive as that was, it wasn't a crime as such either (it was at best an expressed interest in committing one in the future). He was also notorious for his various pro-incel/pro-pedophile/etc web forums–some of that may have been criminal (apparently he hosted child pornography on some of them), but a lot of its odiousness again was not criminal as such (pro-pedophile advocacy is not a crime in the US). Larson was essentially an extremist, and he became notorious for being one, and while some of that extremism was criminal, a fair chunk of it wasn't. Furthermore, "criminal" makes him sound like he could have just been some run-of-the-mill bank robber or drug dealer, and doesn't really capture the particular nature of his notoriety and odiousness. Which is why I moved it to "Nathan Larson (extremist)". But User:Aoidh reverted my move, primarily on the grounds that it violated WP:EXTREMIST. Fair enough–I'd forgotten about that policy. While I understand the justification for that policy in general, I'd question if individuals like this were really thought of when it was written, and whether they might be a justifiable exception for it. But I assume that's not going to fly – I still think we should have a disambiguator that better captures the specific nature of his odiousness/notoriety than "criminal" does. How about "Nathan Larson (white supremacist)"? Although he stood for more for than just white supremacy, many of his other atrocious views (pro-pedophile, misogynist, incel, etc) are very white supremacist-adjacent things. Or, if people don't like that, how about "(pro-pedophilia activist)"? Much better at capturing why he is notorious than just "(criminal)" does. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Opposed Largely known for controversial views and criminal deeds related to sexuality rather than white supremacy. If you open the category for other American white supremacists, it's rarely used as a disambiguation and when it is the person in question is very highly, primarily associated with the label. Linking the pedophilia stuff to white supremacy sounds like editorializing point of view pushing or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Killuminator (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The previous talk page discussion in March 2021 ended saying "politician" was the least bad option. Larson was best known for his advocacy of many foul things. My opinion from 2021, that "advocate""activist" is the appropriate NPOV disabiguation term, still stands. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    User:Gene93k I don't have a problem with your proposal of "activist", I think that is also better than "criminal". If you want to propose that I'd support it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose the requested move to "(white supremacist)" per rationale of Killuminator. Support move to "activist" per rationale of Gene93K. Sal2100 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see any evidence in any of the sources that there has been any element of racism attributed to him. By definition, white supremacy is inherently racist. "Criminal" is the best category for him, because he has been charged (and in some cases, convicted) under multiple types of crime (not just those related to paedophilia). Risker (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Risker.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2023 (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.

Recent move discussion

I was on a break and missed the entire discussion. For future reference, I would've been on the fence about that move, but I would oppose a move to "activist", which is not at all what Larson is most notable for. Wes sideman (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathan_Larson_(criminal)/Archive_2&oldid=1219785440"