Talk:Larry Elder

Proposal of Controversies section

While one could argue that Elder's status as a contrarian means that Positions cover his controversies, I would argue that some of these warrant their own section. His comments on women, which led to his condemnation by fellow gubernatorial candidates Kevin Faulconer and Caitlyn Jenner, are of this kind. I don't know if this topic has previously been discussed, but I believe we should debate a Controversies section. PickleG13 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article has no controversies or criticism section. Yes, she has said some controversial stuff but they have fallen under her political positions. I believe Elder's criticism should remain under political positions. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections tend to become magnets for criticism-cruft by mud-slinging, barrel-bottom-scraping partisans who can't write but self-pleasure to like-minded partisan web outlets whenever they publish negative and sensationalist content about a subject. See WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITS. Not every disagreeable opinion is a controversy, and including them under a devoted "controversy" or "criticism" risks unduly framing factual events under a select point of view. You don't find "controversy" sections in Gavin Newsom, Ilhan Omar, Barack Obama, nor controversial radio hosts like Howard Stern and Tucker Carlson. Not even even Adolf Hitler has a controversy section (sorry Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Brian Williams; the amateur scribes of Wikipedia have structured your tables of contents as more controversial than literally Hitler's.) --Animalparty! (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm beginning to concur. If we're going to create a controversies section for a politician, it CANNOT be one-sided, regardless of our opinions. Transparency is a requirement. This involves not taking quotes out of context, nor leading the reader to a conclusion without ample sources.

I've tried twice now to add much needed context via a source link to a study Elder has quoted continuously in support of his statement about women not knowing as much about politics as men. He quotes this study repeatedly when asked about his statement, which regardless of our opinion, provides very specific clarity to the intention of that statement. It's dishonest to omit that and the reliability of Wikipedia suffers at each instance of this. DanielkHartness (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections are now just low-quality smear huckstering. Is there actually a controversy about him? Is it a national scandal? Over-used. 96.59.126.42 (talk)

LGBTQ

An anonymous user has added a note to Elder's possible LGBTQ social issue stances ((possible because it's outdated)) and after reverting back and forth, I wanted to make sure if the note is appropriate or unnecessary. Lostfan333 (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The cited RS explicitly says that Elder has a history of anti-LGBT remarks[1]. The reasons for removing the content are poorly based. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help debug this?

References

Using Elder's piece in Fox News as a source

I've been having a somewhat related problem with someone who keeps citing WP:SELFSOURCE but who does not seem to have read or understood it. The user imagines somehow that a published op-ed by Larry Elder from 2020 cannot be used as evidence for Elder's opinions about COVID etc in 2020. This despite the fact that there's a section of WP:SELFSOURCE that states that an op-ed can be used in such circumstances as a source about themselves ("Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). Talk about pushing an illogical argument to its illogical extremes. 72.86.135.33 (talk)

You're missing the point. We're not using someone's own writing to source their own opinions because there is no evidence whatsoever that that opinion is worth mentioning--that is something only secondary sources can do. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Things said/done do not become significant because a journalist posts something online about them; nor are things said/done insignificant because no journalist has posted something online about them. Your comment is highly ironic because the reason Elder has a WP page in the first place is precisely the fact that he has been given media platforms to express the very opinions that you are claiming can't be treated as significant about him in their own right.72.86.136.198 (talk)

Elder is making claims about Trump (who coincidentally is very litigious as I understand due to the many lawsuits he files). If Elder makes the claims and a journalist reprints it in a newspaper, the newspaper went through a process to verify that Elder makes the claims, and assumes responsibility for misquoting, etc. (libel). Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources for this reason. If Elder is making a claim about himself, and determines his statements are slanderous, he has to sue himself? Of course that is absurd, which is why it would be fine if he was just making claims about himself, per WP:SELFSOURCE. But he is making claims about another person. This is the background of WP:SELFSOURCE as I understand it. What if you paraphrased Elder's claims about Trump in a faulty manner, section 230 is repealed, and Trump decided to sue Wikipedia? That's why they're so strict about claims about others. The entities underwriting what you see in the news are not wikipedia, facebook, or google news. Technically, wikipedia is protecting editors like you, too, if they have a risk-averse policy, because if you were to put something slanderous on wikipedia and someone didn't like it, their recourse under current law (section 230) would be to sue you, not Wikipedia. Your addition is extremely loaded...your paraphrasing: "denied that Donald Trump mismanaged the response to the COVID-19 crisis" is so loaded that this should be obvious. You don't even have a knack for paraphrasing in an impartial manner. That's why these rules exist. 174.193.203.17 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your response makes little sense. My paraphrases is accurate and fair. Elder does deny that Trump mismanaged the response. He does make excuses for Trump not wearing a mask and for holding mass rallies. That is the entire substance of my edit - which nowhere states that Trump (as a factual matter) mismanaged the response or that (as a factual matter) he is at fault for not wearing a mask and for holding mass rallies. My edit is about Elder's stated positions. Your understanding of the relevance of WP:SELFSOURCE is itself the problem here. Trump's litigiousness is not relevant because this edit is about Elder's published defense of Trump's behavior, not about Trump's behavior. How in the world is that hard for you to understand?72.86.135.10 (talk)

WP:SELFSOURCE encourages "de minimus" primary source usage regardless, even if these are Elder's solipsistic musings about the abstract concept "Trump", and not claims about another individual named "Trump". You now have been reverted by 3 different editors...even if I misunderstood those rules by bringing up liability rather than notability (did I?), you really should just find a secondary source, like every reverter is requesting you to do. 2600:1012:B066:507:142B:C5BB:22C6:7AC5 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, the sourcing is fine by my lights, but is it a notable opinion? I see no evidence that it received any sort of coverage by third parties. If this were worthy of inclusion simply by dint of Elder having expressed the view, then literally everything he has ever said or written in a public way becomes fair game in terms of notability. I don't think that's a workable or desirable outcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is notable because it makes a travesty of scientific consensus. If other statements of Elder make a travesty of scientific consensus regarding issues of great public import, then those should be added as well. He is a leading gubernatorial candidate, after all. As for the earlier editor so determined to delete the information, the disingenuous suggestion "get a secondary source" is absurd. Journalists rarely write up reports about what op-ed authors are saying because ... what would the point be in summarizing an op-ed? His own edits/reversions have been reverted on this page repeatedly by multiple editors as unhelpful; should he apply his "you're obviously wrong because of the fact you've been reverted" standard to himself then?

Here is a recent discussion in a CA newspaper column of exactly the Elder op-ed I cited, pointing out that then Elder backed all of Trump's COVID nonsense to the hilt but now Elder pretends he was never particularly a Trump supporter. https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2021/08/15/larry-elders-fibs-about-his-ongoing-love-for-trump/ Dumuzid, your declaration that these statements by Elder are inconsequential really is not borne out by how Elder's statements are being revisited during this election campaign.72.86.137.172 (talk)

Let's be clear that what I find personally consequential and what passes muster under Wikipedia's many policies are not the same thing. And yes, this is more like the sort of source you need! I am not sure I would the inclusion WP:DUE based on this alone, but my bigger problem is that it doesn't actually particularly reflect the debated language. It's in the ballpark, but I would still want something more specific, or pointing explicitly to the Elder opinion you want to cite. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How can it possibly NOT be consequential that the leading candidate in the gubernatorial recall argues that there's no harm in refusing to wear masks during a deadly pandemic and in holding mass unmasked rallies?! You appear to be the only person who questions whether this is consequential. The other editor arguing for its deletion presents a range of confused and contradictory justifications...as if he sees quite clearly why public awareness of this particular information would be detrimental to Elder's public esteem.72.86.136.206 (talk)

Again, I personally think it's consequential, but Wikipedia relies on more than that--WP:DUE demands that the opinion have received some sort of coverage somewhere. Essentially, you're saying your own thought or original research is enough to put things in to the article. By that standard, we could put in every public utterance the man has ever made. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Surely a journalist somewhere has produced something somewhere which allows you to add your contribution or something in the spirit of it, then. And I don't even have any sort of disagreement with what you're saying, seeing as these claims appear to have been made prior to the introduction of the vaccine. FYI I don't think all of the reversions you are referring to were on my edits; anyone editing with a cellphone has a long and garbled IP address which starts with 26. Click "geolocate" on the IP userpage to see the general area of where the editor is. I added Elder's affiliation with Stephen Miller to this page, something that was really pathetically absent and (in my opinion) reflects very negatively on Elder in the eyes of the California electorate...I really don't care about the subject matter to be honest, but my weakness is getting sucked into arguments; anyhow, just find a secondary source. Here's a good place to start; there is information about both Trump and covid stuff here: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/03/recall-election-conservative-radio-host-larry-elder-on-gavin-newsom-covid-and-whether-trump-lost-in-2020/ 2600:1012:B066:507:142B:C5BB:22C6:7AC5 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is in fact a secondary source who repeats what Elder himself states, as you assume, and you believe a secondary source would bolster the credibility, then why don't you add one yourself? I see zero need to prove a second time that Elder said what his own op-ed says. At least one other editor backs that position.72.86.136.198 (talk)

The onus is on you to find it, since you want to include it. I and others are allowed to be the lazy ones here by simply reverting you, while citing robust wiki guidelines. You now have five editors who have, independently, reverted you, and yet you continue to stubbornly insist... 2600:1012:B066:507:68B3:1BEB:800D:5CD6 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You're the sole person who declares that, contrary to the very policy you yourself cited, op-ed statements by the subject are inadequate to determine what the subject actually said. Others have pointed out your error. There is no need for a secondary source to confirm that Elder stated what he stated, and that won't change no matter how many times you declare a secondary source to be necessary.72.86.136.198 (talk)

Clearly neither of us are the experts here, but the experts that are here seem to be in unanimous disagreement with you. 2600:1012:B066:507:68B3:1BEB:800D:5CD6 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The faulty primary-sourced contribution remains in the article, now that IP addresses are shut out of this page, it wouldn't be a waste of time to revert it. 174.193.128.14 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Aug. 19 edit

I have removed some intervening edits by Anish631 that consisted of (1) rewordings that were either not supported by, or diverged from, the cited sources; (2) WP:SYNTH material; (3) material that is redundant (for example, the Hollywood Walk of Fame is already covered); and (4) gives excessive space to primary-sourced content. Anish631, if you have anything specific in that batch that you want to make a case for, please do so here -- absent consensus, of course, this must stay out. Neutrality^talk 16:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue with source

From another IP address, 2600:1012:b066:f864:d83e:8380:6ac7:b3a3, not me, moved for proper formatting:

• "The source provided for Elder's disapproval of universal basic income doesn't mention the subject at all."

174.193.128.14 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That is correct; the cited source is about the minimum wage and does not mention universal basic income. I have replaced it with another source in which Elder states his opposition to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There also seems to be a source issue with regards to one being added for his controversial claim about women. I agree with the attempting editor that this should be added. The article appears highly misinformed if good sources aren't used.

Info on Alexandra Datig. Relevant, irrelevant?

Alexandra Datig had previously, before coming forward with her abuse allegations, expressed her preference for Kevin Faulconer in the recall election on her political blog. Is this relevant or irrelevant to include? Thoughts? https://sjvsun.com/news/politics/carecall/larry-elders-ex-producer-fiancee-isnt-standing-by-her-man-heres-who-she-backs-in-the-recall/ SecretName101 (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti LGBT?

Do you think this page should repeat the claim in that newspaper that Larry Elder's remarks were Anti LGBT in general or just anti Transgender, or can we interpret this ourselves as news sources can be biased. @KidAd: Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we cannot interpret this ourselves per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also, are you aware what the T in LGBTQ(+) stands for? KidAd • SPEAK 18:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If a news article said that "I like eggs" was anti LGBT then by the same logic that would also be considered anti LGBT, and being anti LGBT would mean being against all of it, :There is no synthesis or background original research here, it's literally just stating that he is anti transgender, because he is,and not repeating a dubious claim made by a news outlet, are you suggesting we should repeat every "this is this" claim made by the media even when they are as dubious and debatable. Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Your "I like eggs" example really doesn't make any sense. KidAd • SPEAK 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

fair enough, but do you genuinely agree with the first two comments? particularly the comment on the pulse shooting as homophobic, i'm genuinely interested to hear your opinion Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

is it ok if i write his comments in just to clarify what he said, without removing the part about LGBT? Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not your job to clarify or interpret. KidAd • SPEAK 22:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

LA Times article

Pro-democracy and pro-human rights Los Angeles Times is saying he is a (Redacted) most likely the next (Redacted) and I think this should be added to the main article Perhaps his real name is (Redacted)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians PearlJamDemocracy (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I've been multitasking. But things like Larry Elder Hitler are not appropriate by any means per WP:BLP. I have redacted portions of your comment. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I had already added the "black face of White Supremacy" information into the article a few days ago but my edit was reverted. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Although Larry Elder might not be the next Adolf Hitler but he might me a white supremacist just like Nazis. PearlJamDemocracy (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you actually believe Elder is a white Supremacists?? And you claim he "might not be" the next Hithler?? You must surely know that the Los Angeles Times article on this is a bland opinion. Lostfan333 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. I have no stance on Elder - i hadn't heard of him until I recently stumbled upon his article - but the proposed labels and wording mentioned above are far from how an encyclopedia writes about a living person. There's probably ways to add some of the loose sentiments here, but these attempts/requests are far from the way to implement or word it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

„ Elder's views are conservative[1][29] and right wing.[30]“

Larry elder is NOT a right winger. This “source” is a opinion hit piece to discredit him for the Sept 14 governor recall in California.

Anyone who has been listening to his show will confirm this, and described himself here as a LIBERATARIAN.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4KOSlNCPGg

This misinformation can be misleading for this election, where he’s polling high! Dennislisbon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Black face of White Supremacy

Elder has been constantly attacked as the "Black face of White Supremacy." I believe this discussion has been ongoing but I'd like to revisit it, as not only was it the LA Times who said this, but now speakers are saying it in rallies against the Recall Effort. I don't want to sound stupid but, I understand that little things that politicians say about the Squad are immediately added to "controversies," so adding these attacks on Elder shouldn't be that hard. Lostfan333 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, please provide additional RS. It's quite an extreme claim, we'd need multiple reliable sources to include it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In late August, the Los Angeles Times published a column, calling Larry Elder the "black face of White Supremacy." Elder responded by stating that Liberals are "scared to death" that he could actually take control of the state.

</ref>Chasmar, Jessica (September 6, 2021). Fox News https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-speaker-larry-elder-black-face-white-supremacy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>

These are the 3 sources I have for this articles' request. I don't know how to word that 3rd source.Lostfan333 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, Fox News is not considered reliable for politics. See WP:FOXNEWS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This phrase comes from an opinion piece by Times columnist Erika D. Smith, who quotes Melina Abdullah. Wikipedia is neither dictated by, nor beholden to, the views of Smith and Abdullah and should not give the views Smith (or any other opiner) disproportionate emphasis. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a good encyclopedia doesn't, nor shouldn't, list all of them. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Lostfan333 If you say you have witnessed Elder being constantly attacked as "Black face of White Supremacy", if you can recall and find those sources, and if they are indeed WP:RS then you can add it in if it seems noteworthy. However do be aware that if it's an opinion piece, most people's opinion aren't notable enough for article inclusion. You would have to use verbiage that indicates that it is indeed somebody's opinion, as to not mislead the readers into thinking opinion is fact (Crazy concept I know), another good rule is the ten year test aka WP:10YT (which is a good test of notability, if nobody will care about some journalists personal opinion about a topic in 10 years, then don't add it. As some editors sometimes present op-eds as fact in good faith, and it can be a mess.) MaximusEditor (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Trump

The article says Elder "is an ardent supporter of Donald Trump" both in the introduction and in the political positions section, and tying Elder to Trump is a key part of this Wikipedia entry as well as the Newsom campaign against him. However, Elder has pushed back on his description. This is not a "routine quibble" with the media like described when this edit was reverted, but rather a key element in the campaign against him. To exclude the candidate's own voice and only include the viewpoint of the Newsom campaign does not make for a neutral entry. Swyilk (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• The content that you've tried to add has been removed by two editors, so please don't re-insert it again (you need consensus in order to do so, see WP:ONUS). This content is both undue weight and misleading:

• First, it suggests, misleadingly, that Elder denies being a Trump supporter. In fact, Elder's media quibble is all about framing: per the sources, he says that he doesn't like the term "Trump supporter" because he supports all Republicans as a matter of course and would also be a "Bush supporter," "Romney supporter," etc. But that is already made clear in the preceding paragraph, which makes clear that Elder has supported Republicans since the 1980s.
• Moreover, a candidate's complaints about media coverage are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. We are not obliged to include every statement or preferred framing of an article's subject. This article extensively explains Elder's own views expressed over 30 years of commentary, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the "viewpoint of the Newsom campaign."

13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Slavery Reparations

The article claims Elder "argued for reparations to descendants of slave owners who lost property (the slaves)" and cites an interview with conservative radio host Candace Owens. This section of the article is an obvious hit piece, as Elder did not assert he was a proponent of payments to descendants of slave owners. In fact, he did not mention descendants of slave owners at all. He is simply commenting about the murkiness of slavery reparations, i.e. "do you want to go there". If I had edit permission, I would change the passage to read "In a conversation with conservative radio host Candace Owens, Elder pointed out that, ironically, slavery reparations have historically included payments to slave owners who lost "property", i.e. their slaves.". That is a fair description of what Elder actually said. The cited article also inaccurately conflates slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, which was abolished in the U.S. in 1808. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsvices (talk • contribs)

That claim is sourced to Business Insider which is a yellow source per WP:RSP with concerns related to reliability. Absent better sourcing I would remove the contentious claim. Springee (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cubsvices and Springee that this section does not accurately reflect the tongue-in-cheek nature of the exchange. I will go ahead and remove it Swyilk (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems that "the tongue-in-cheek nature" is WP:OR. If the source is problematic, we can substitute with a different reference: Yahoo News, [2] Banana Republic (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an example of churnalism. The Yahoo article cites the BI article and points to it. Concerns regarding stopping context from the original comments are not OR. Instead they are valid reasons to question the reliability and weight of the source. Springee (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Whatever it is, this bit of information sounds like a big deal, considering the platform Elder is running on. An egregious claim like this cannot simply be left without coverage. The comment was made, that is verifiable. We should be looking for a reliable source that covers it as opposed to removing the information. It's hard to believe something like this didn't receive coverage. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The original source has stripped the context of the comment away which is something a RS should never do. This is part of why BI is not considered a RS. Presenting a "shocking" quote that will lead the readers to a false conclusion is never OK and we would be lying to our readers if we said this is what Elder actually thinks. Conversely, the argument, "well he said it so we have to report it" isn't true at all. Given Elder's public profile, if stronger sources aren't covering this then we can assume it doesn't have weight. Springee (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Which is why we need to find better sources instead of unceremoniously dismissing the whole thing. As for context, the comment was made in the context of a PragerU videon in conversation with Candace Owens. Both are known for peddling disinformation and historical revisionism, and denying systemic racism. As it turns out, his comment sounds even worse in context. Of course I get the feeling that by context, you mean "he said the words 'it can be argued', ergo plausible deniability".

The onus is on those who wish to include to find the better sources. Springee (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: "Larry Elder" + "slave owners" yields over 165K hits on google, including the following:

• https://www.essence.com/news/larry-elder-argues-reparation-for-slave-owners-california-governor-recall-election/
• https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/jack-ohman/article254108908.html
• https://www.revolt.tv/2021/9/7/22661010/larry-elder-slave-owners-owed-reparations
• https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Larry-Elder-is-the-Trumpist-that-may-save-Gavin-16450323.php
• https://www.reuters.com/world/us/larry-elder-right-wing-radio-host-seeks-governorship-california-recall-2021-09-14/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/163651/california-recall-election-larry-elder-rose-mcgowan-bonkers
• https://californianewstimes.com/larry-elder-insists-slave-owners-are-owed-money-because-their-property-was-stolen-during-the-civil-war/513247/
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-09/little-support-for-candidate-elder-in-south-la

Many of these are either green on WP:RSP, or their articles suggest they are generally reliable. Note that I delibetately ommitted at least three other sources that are listed as red, but they mostly say the same thing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you are doing key word search digging here. The only way such a claim should be included is with full context per ABOUTSELF or not at all. Given how the major sources are covering this it's clear this is not something they want to make an issue about. Perhaps that is because if they do the full context would be covered? Note that they aren't asking Elder for comment. Sorry, the object of wikipedia is to be impartial, pushing this sort of content without providing full context is not impartial and doesn't improve the article. Springee (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Impartial is giving due weight to material from reliable secondary sources, proportionate to their coverage. The incident is clearly notable enough to be widely reported, and your argument for dismissing the sources, despite them being reliable, is that they don't include what you believe they should include. Not to mention that you have yet to explain what you believe this context is. What other context is there besides what reliable sources provide. I did as you told me and presented better sources. Isn't the onus on you now to prove that this context is relevant, by providing reliable sources that discuss it? Am I missing something? Should I ping other editors for a second opinion? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This has scant mention and in examples like Reuters it was buried deep in the article. Sorry, this is a BLP, we don't include statements like that unless the weight and context are clear. There is a world of difference between saying "I think salve owners deserve reparations" and "If you follow the logic of that argument then this argument also makes sense...". Additionally, RECENT would apply to something like this. Sources like "Essence" is not going to be a RS for such a claim. It's also clear in most of your sources the writers are clearly mixing opinion/commentary with actually looking at the arguments. Unfortunately there is a world of difference between making a legal type argument and actually advocating for something. Many people with a legal background will argue or illustrate a point by showing how the logic behind what ostensibly looks like a good idea is the same as that which looks like a bad idea. Its rather bad faith to strip that part of the discussion away and then act as if he is actually advocating for something when in fact he is trying to explain why allowing A opens the logical door for B. It is dishonest to claim he was advocating for reparations for slave holders. I would hope you can understand that. Springee (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to get into the dissection of what he actually meant, then you can see that he's drawing legal equivalent between a person being a slave and a slave owner having his slaves taken away. This type of logic presupposes that owning a slave is a lgitimate form of property, indistinguishable from owning a house. That in itself is bad enough, even if the person making it isn't explicitly advocating for paying reparations to slave owners. Not to mention your interpretation of LE's comment is original research. I ask this again. Should I ping others who contributed to this talk page, or the article itself? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Which leaves us where we started. This is RECENT, it's clear that context is being left out. The sources that are actually talking about it vs just mentioning it down in the article are lesser sources. It isn't DUE in this article. Springee (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You keep insisting that his comment was "stripped of context" when I already explained how the context actually makes it even worse. I asked you twice, and I'm going to ask it one last time: should I ping other users and see what the consensus is? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Springee here. It'd be like including Joe Biden's quote where he said he "didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle" on Joe Biden's Wikipedia page (without the proper context). It's certainly notable, but that's in large part because it's been stripped of context. Swyilk (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Swyilk:First off, plase fix the reference. It's on the bottom of the page. Second, Biden is not, nor has he ever been a member of the party of the south. He isn't a supporter of a certain former president who's greatest achievement is stoking racial tensions in the past 6 years with his hateful rethoric, and he doesn't associate with lost cause apologists and "white genocide" believers, so this is false equivalence. The problem with the Biden quote isn't that it was stripped of context, but rather that there is no context in which it could be read to mean anything even remotely similar to what republicans want to frame it as. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Gorilla mask assault?

There is widely available video of this guy being confronted by a woman in a gorilla mask. She appears to throw an egg, and then proceeds to slap a security person in the face. I'm not a fan of the man, but this sort of overtly racist behavior is outrageous, and warrants inclusion in the article. What are other editor's thoughts on including a mention of this incident? 2601:18F:4101:4830:35B8:F991:87F:C2A7 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Many politicians have had eggs, tomatoes and cream pies thrown at them. In this case, the egg missed Elder. Should all such minor incidents be mentioned? What reliable sources report that racism was the motive, as opposed to Elder's far right Ideology? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If it was just an egg, I'd agree - that's par for the course. However, the woman who threw it was wearing a gorilla mask. The history of associating African Americans with non-human primates is well documented, and obviously racist. If the heckler was simply trying to hide her face, it strikes me has highly unlikely that she just happened to select a gorilla mask to accomplish that goal. [EDIT: Someone else added that Snopes "racial jungle" link, it is not part of my post]. 2601:18F:4101:4830:35B8:F991:87F:C2A7 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question: What reliable sources report that racism was the motive, as opposed to Elder's far right Ideology? Your interpretation of the woman's motive is original research and we summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. If someone showed up in a KKK outfit, certain assumptions about their message would be made by all thoughtful people. Those assumptions do not constitute original research, they are inherent in the KKK outfit. To pretend that an individual showing up to protest an African American, while wearing a gorilla mask, has no racial connotation is what Andy Dufresne would call "Obtuse". I understand rationally evaluating politically charged topics can be tough for many people to do, you're not alone. And as I stated earlier, I don't like this guys politics at all. I don't speak for all African Americans, but I assure you that you are on the tiniest of margins in not characterizing this gesture as overtly racist. It is unfortunate that we still need to have these sorts of debates in 2021. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, this is not a matter of what you think or what I think. It is entirely a matter of what reliable sources say or don't say about racism as a motivation behind this incident. This is Wikipedia 101. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with it's inclusion. It's obviously different than a typical egg-throwing case.

I also dissent with assertions of "far-right" ideology claims about LE. We should not let our opinions or our ideologies disrupt a mission of honesty and transparency. His politics should be described at most denotatively (libertarian), which is not anywhere close to "far-right", and not connotaively through our ideological lense. DanielkHartness (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not different from any other egg throwing event. And nowhere in the article is he called "far-right". It calls him a "conservative" and "right-wing", which are supported by sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To pretend that an individual showing up to protest an African American, while wearing a gorilla mask, has no racial connotation is what Andy Dufresne would call "Obtuse" Actually, from what I heard, the woman was a member of an activist group that uses a gorilla as a mascot. the claim that this incident was racially motivated might carry water if LE wasn't a republican in a Democratic stronghold. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't hijack this section, if editors want to debate how best to articulate the man's politics, create another section. This section is about whether the gorilla mask incident is appropriate to include in the article. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you muboshgu, the egg throwing is not the point, it's the fact that the protestor was wearing a gorilla mask. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to an LA Times article about the incident, the writers clearly state that other commentators have described it as a racially motivated incident, and then they correctly follow it with "given the white supremacist history of dehumanizing Black people with ape imagery". https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-10/lapd-investigating-egg-throwing-incident-larry-elder-venice-homeless

2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this "racial jungle" link included at the bottom of this section, and how do we remove it? As far as I can tell it is a quote from President Biden, and has no relevance to this discussion. 2601:18F:4101:4830:CCF8:30F2:F68A:1BFA (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The racial jungle quote was brought up in another section. Apparently the person who cited it put it on the bottom of the page. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad this was resolved. And yes, it is different, being racially motivated. This is the point of the debate.

Now, should we include under Political Activities or a new section? DanielkHartness (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The comment made by "Cullen" referred to LE a far-right, which is what I was referencing, simply supporting the need to report this incident and not lose site of it being important, which is now obvious. DanielkHartness (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Has the assault been added yet?? I assume Cullen probably thinks it's offensive for DeSantis to simply say "monkey" things up but an actual attack against an African-American man is simply nothing. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, I have never commented on that DeSantis remark and consider it trivial, so please do not assume to know what I think. As for Elder being far right, DanielkHartness, just Google "Larry Elder far right " and you will see many reliable sources describe him that way. The LA Times story is hidden behind a paywall for me. But one thing that I do know for sure is that we need impeccable coverage in reliable sources to say that the egg-thrower was motivated by racism. That is a matter of WP:BLP policy which is non-negotiable. Can someone quote the relevant sentences in the LA Times story? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sticking purely to definitions, I'm of course required to stringently disagree with "far-right" labels. Lowest hanging fruit being simply his policy stances not meeting that denotative threshold. Regardless, I appreciate the opinion and would happily agree if we do reference him as such siting those media sources, we should do so explaining that is their claim. Thanks Cullen DanielkHartness (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DanielkHartness, I am not trying to add "far right" to the actual article, but was simply using the phrase in discussing possible motivations of the egg thrower, since Elder is often described that way. We have stringent restrictions on adding BLP related content and I am trying to explain why we need coverage in reliable sources to say that the motivation was racism. "Res ipsa loquitur" is not a policy or a guideline on Wikipedia, and editors are forbidden from adding their own conclusions, as reasonable as they may be. The role of an editor is to summarize reliable sources. Period. I am not trying to defend or excuse the egg throwing incident. Personally, I think that it was foolish, counterproductive, childish and criminal. I am just asking for excellent sources if we are to call it racist in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, that's so cute!! I myself happen to stumble upon these pay wall articles. Makes me sad, lol. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We're definitely on the same page. No worries. I've been trying to uphold those standards on the article page. Thanks Cullen. DanielkHartness (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to understand something here, are you attempting to suggest that dawning a gorilla mask to harass an African American candidate for public office is not an overtly racist act in of itself? You believe more information is required to evaluate intent? Comparing African Americans, and people of African descent in general, to monkeys and non-human apes is a well established racist trope. The egg is harassment, but not necessarily racist. Adding the gorilla mask into the mix changes the equation. If you don't have access to the LA Times, that's unfortunate, but irrelevant. Wikipedia guidelines do not require all editors have access to source for it to be considered. 2601:18F:4101:4830:6847:F2A2:C042:4CCA (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC) 2601:18F:4101:4830:6847:F2A2:C042:4CCA (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are several outlets whose coverage of the story includes the racist angle. https://denvergazette.com/news/la-sheriff-on-larry-elder-s-gorilla-mask-assailant-how-is-this-not-a-hate/article_6e315549-46d0-5890-ae52-05c0e5794f4b.html https://ktla.com/news/local-news/police-seek-woman-wearing-gorilla-mask-in-attack-against-larry-elder-in-venice-supporters-claim-double-standard/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-elder-were-a-democrat-11631225349 https://nypost.com/2021/09/09/media-ignore-racial-attack-on-larry-elder-because-hes-republican/ https://news.yahoo.com/larry-elder-egged-woman-gorilla-125305685.html

In addition, Elder himself said it found the incident to be racist, if that counts for anything. 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because there are sources does not mean it should be included, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It's also not up to us to decide if this is a hate crime or not. That's up to law enforcement. Ascribing a racist motive to the person in the gorilla mask is WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So by your definition, ascribing racism to anything is only appropriate if the subject self-attests that their motives were racist? Anything short of that is opinion, so we can't make any assumptions about someone in a Klan outfit either right? Because ascribing a racist motive to the person in the white robes is original research? 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, about a quarter of the negative info on this page only popped up when the guy became a (failed) candidate. I understand you don't like the man, as I said before, I'm no fan. But we can't suddenly close our eyes to racist acts just because they are committed against a jerk like him. 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

In the section "Statements and views on women", the quote "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies" is used twice in nearly identical sentences.

Use #1: Elder argued the Democratic party was often successful with women because of their "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies" Use #2: Elder has asserted that Democrats achieve more success among women voters because they have "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies."

One of these should be removed. 50.230.19.66 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Talk 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

proposed correction to slavery vs. welfare

Article at present reads:

Elder believes that welfare is more harmful to Black families than slavery

I think there should be clarification that Elder is saying welfare is more harmful to Black families living today than the historical impacts of slavery up to 1865 are to Blacks in the US today. Otherwise, the article reads as if it is saying welfare is more harmful in 2021 than slavery was in 1861, which is a false comparison.174.0.48.147 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but it's not how he explained what he was talking about. He was comparing welfare to historic slavery, not to today's legacy of slavery. He said, "The welfare state has done more to destroy and destabilize the Black family than even slavery did." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)