Jump to content

Talk:The Lincoln Project

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denniss (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 19 June 2024 (Reverted 2 edits by 2600:8801:BE1C:1D00:162:DD23:70D7:B6E4 (talk): Nonsense and/or POV edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by RoySmith (talk). Self-nominated at 06:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment RINO is a derogatory term. Unless the committee describes itself as such, it would be best to use a more neutral descriptor such as "NeverTrump Republicans". Also, you hook is not interesting, it is not surprising that people from a political faction would get together. buidhe 21:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added ALT1. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article was brand new when nominated and has enough readable prose size. Article is neutral and has inline citations. Source for the hook is now a broken link, but the text is available directly from Associated Press so I've put that citation in the article. Article is surprisingly stable given the subject matter! QPQ done. Only issue is copyright: copyvio tool flagged up the "On May 4, 2020, the group released an ad..." paragraph as from a Dailyhawker.com article, but that article is dated 6 May 2020; the date the paragraph was added to the WP article. ALT1 hook is a great improvement. I think we need a rephrasing of that one paragraph before this can pass. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the hook reference to point to the archive AP copy of the article; thanks for finding this. I'll look at the other stuff in a moment. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the offending paragraph, and provided two citations for the direct quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making these improvements so quickly. All criteria met, I think ALT1 is good to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but am unable to verify the hook fact as written. Footnote 5, which supports the sentence All four, although conservative Republicans, are outspoken critics of Trump., says that they are no longer members of the Republican Party. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah, The NY Times op-ed by the four founders is titled, "We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated", so clearly they consider themselves Republicans. And, the NBC news piece (reference 5) doesn't actually say they're no longer members of the party. It says, "seven-person advisory council ... Most, but not all, have already left the Republican Party". So, we don't even know from that which of them have left the party, or exactly how many. I'm not even sure what it means to "have left the party". Did they officially cancel their subscription to the magazine? Did they file a notice with their local election board that they're changing their party affiliation? I appreciate the need to be accurate, but I think this is a little excessive -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

The criticism section seems like it could do with a better title. It's not actually criticism of any particular element of the group, it simply natural responses from people who disagree with their POV. Obviously a partisan group is going to receive a lot of partisan criticism. Not sure what a better title would be but basically something like 'Republican / Conservative responses' - though obviously something better than that.

Compare that with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priorities_USA_Action#Criticism where the Criticism is actually finding misleading claims that were made in an ad. | MK17b | (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've changed the heading to Reactions. Not sure if that's the best heading for that section, but I think it's an improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that change. I see somebody has added a reaction from the other side of the aisle, so a win for NPOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good change. "Reaction" is more neutral than "criticism" OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mk17b, As it stands, it tells us that a lot of liberals like it, with primary sourced commentary form the liberals liking it, and that a lot of Trumpies hate it, with primary sourced commentary from the Trumpies hating it, with the main difference being that the Trumpies write is substantially less reliable sources (e.g. Washington Examiner).
What do we as readers learn from this content? If your answer is "nothing" then we agree.
I think we should remove any primary sourced opinions, and leave only substantial and reliable secondary sources that discuss reactions by one or both sides. Guy (help!) 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Horn

@Elmer Clark: please see this thread on my talk page regarding whether Horn was a founder or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems to be a rather complex situation. I think your User:Neutrality's additions to the body text are a good solution for now, but this really needs to be clarified somehow. It doesn't help that the WMUR article you posted claims she co-founded it with seven other people. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elmer Clark, I suspect there's no official document that authoritatively states, "The following people are the founders, no more, no less". I'm cautious of citing any particular news source for this, since most of them are probably less careful about WP:V than we are. So, I think we may need to be content with some vagueness about what we say. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [30] is broken. Either fix it or I will delete the second half of this sentence for lack of RS. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Pratt, What do you mean by "broken"? Reference 30 (Catherine Garcia, New Lincoln Project ad controversially questions Trump's health) links to https://theweek.com/speedreads/921351/public-health-experts-warn-exponential-coronavirus-growth-sustained-pandemic, which appears to be a working URL. Reference 30 is used in four places, so I also don't know what you mean by "this sentence". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer. By "broken" I meant that it points to an article headlined "Public health experts warn exponential coronavirus growth sustained pandemic." How is that a RS for any of the four occurrences of [30]? If you can fix it so that it points to an article that mentions Catherine Garcia and Trump that would be great. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vaughan Pratt, Pinging Neutrality, who added that in this edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I only came to this article to learn about the project. My only complaint so far is with reference [30], which I'd hoped would be more helpful. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ref URL has been corrected. Neutralitytalk 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never Trump

From the discussion at WP:RSN. Sources identifying TLP with Never Trumpism:

I see sources form both sides of US politics that say this group was founded by never-Trumpers, and some that it is a never-Trump group. What I am not seeing is a secondary source saying that it's part of the never-Trump movement or that sources on both sides have described it as such. In fact WaPo says "Several prominent Republicans who have loudly opposed President Trump launched a major fundraising campaign Tuesday to try to help beat him in 2020, vowing that cold, hard cash will be more effective in blunting him than the public warnings from the failed “Never Trump” movement three years ago." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foiled-in-2016-never-trump-republicans-launch-new-super-pac-in-effort-to-oust-trump-in-2020/2019/12/17/79dc08f4-20e6-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

I owuld say that we can state, in Wiki voice, based on sources, that TLP was founded by never-Trump republicans. We could probably wikilink never-Trump to the never Trump movement. That's probably as far as we can go at this point. Guy (help!) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent ?

The article claims that the project was initiated by "prominent" republicans: George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid. I have been following American politics for a very long time and live in the Washington DC area. I have never heard of any of these persons. I would have to look for their pages on Wikipedia. I don't think that people who are not well known can be qualified as "prominent". Afil (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources describing them as such. Axios, Louisville Courier-Journal, KQED, Boston Globe, NBC Montana. There are also several opinion pieces describing them as such, including New York Times and CNN. Patken4 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have also described a 14 year old Canadian Instagramer as a "Trump insider" as an anonymous source in one of their stories before it got out that she was a nobody making crap up. CNN and the other news media are not what they use to be. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imeriki al-Shimoni, The existence of some shoddy reporting does not negate the fact that many mainstream news outlets have used the term "prominent republican" to describe the founders. I'll add NPR to the list. You do need to carefully read what google returns. There's lots of articles that match a search for "lincoln project" "prominent republican", from various good sources such as The Independent, Forbes, and The Guardian which use those phrases, but not in conjunction with each other. So, for sure, be careful and skeptical when researching, but I think it's well established that we can refer to the founders as "prominent republicans". -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, yes, google as arbiter of prominence. jfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.217.213 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schmidt was campaign manager for the GOP nominee for POTUS in 2008. George Conway was considered for Solicitor General in the current administration. John Weaver, Rick Wilson, and Jennifer Horn have similar bios. If you don't think that's "prominent", I don't know what to tell you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, this article is biased because Wikipedia tilts toward the Left. These are not important or "prominent" Republicans at all, and no doubt most their financing stems from Democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Trump porn?

@Lima Bean Farmer and Glucken123: regarding this recent series of edits, I agree that this doesn't belong in the article. I looked up the NY Times article. It says

The Lincoln Project ads have been dismissed by some as “anti-Trump porn,”

I'm surprised (and frankly, disappointed) that the NYT would make a statement like that with no attribution, but that's their choice. We shouldn't. If we can't find a WP:RS for who actually said that, we can't use it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either NYT is a reliable source or it's not. Having a double standard to dismiss a source unless it reinforces a certain narrative is exactly the type of behavior that has led to rampant left wing bias throughout Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.162.51 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Review Proud Boy misinformation

My topic got deleted for “Baseless claims” but a credible source among others: national review has written about Iranian interference with spreading disinformation to Liberty Project. Clearly there are bad faith editors here seeking to censor this. However it’s worthy noting that Wikipedia has written extensively about disinformation from other political entities/ organizations credited by reliable sources to back it up. I will add it myself if not. Pformenti (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the source you want to add? Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was his initial post, with the link:
Since the FBI has confirmed that the allegations that the Proud Boys we're sending threatening emails to Democrats has been debunked and proven to be Iranian disinformation, this warrants inclusion in the article. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/media-lincoln-project-inadvertently-further-iranian-proud-boys-disinformation-campaign/
I often get my edits reverted but please someone who is more experienced add this in.
Pformenti (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-- Pemilligan (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done WP:UNDUE: according to the article cited, Lincoln Project was one of several prominent people/orgs that fell for this misinformation. They deleted the tween when they became aware. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely worthy of inclusion and has been discussed by 4-5 prominent newspapers including Politico, National Review, Wash Post, Fox News. If we are to subscribe to that standard then there are a great number of articles that mention the spreading of Russian disinformation that warrant deletion, only on account of the person deleting the tweets.

Unless anyone can give a good rationale for it not warranting inclusion I will add this to the article "According to the National Review, the anti-Trump Lincoln Project inadvertently spread Iranian disinformation tweeting out that “the Proud Boys are attempting to scare voters away from the poll” following a string of emails which were sent anonymously intended to scare potential Democrat voters. The tweet amassed over 12,000 retweets, eventually leading them to delete the claim after FBI Director Chris Wray and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe revealed in an emergency press conference Wednesday night that Russia and Iran had obtained “some voter-registration information” that Iran was already using to send the emails."

Again we must maintain NPOV and not declare something undue simply because the newsgroup who spread it later acknowledged their mistake, this gaffe has been mentioned by Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/21/iran-voter-registration-fbi-431048 and Wash Po https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/ both of which mention Lincoln Project. Rachel Maddow reported it, whether it looks good for Lincoln Project or not should not be a concern for Wikipedia when something newsworthy occurs. Pformenti (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS/P, the National Review is a partisan / biased source of controversial quality. It's WP:UNDUE to devote an entire paragraph to something only they covered (and at least based on a quick search, the other sources you linked do not mention the Lincoln Project, so they are no use here.) Wikipedia covers these things when high-quality sources do; but when it's just questionable-quality sources with political axes to grind, it's undue to give it so much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, National Review has no consensus so we ought to vote for inclusion or exclusion. But if you take issue with it we can issue News Break another news site which mentions Lincoln Project https://www.newsbreak.com/california/lincoln/news/2088122879591/lincoln-project-appears-to-have-helped-iranian-disinformation-effort-go-viral

Some more https://www.citizensjournal.us/lincoln-project-appears-to-have-helped-iranian-disinformation-effort-go-viral/?fbclid=IwAR33lbzZrq3Fuh99vGkFJS1HlvgE9MrPDbt54V3fpaq3W1UTTHNNu2RHHQQ

https://news.yahoo.com/media-lincoln-project-inadvertently-further-163435737.html - Yahoo as well.

https://ground.news/article/5cd1ade9-2fcc-4fc0-b1f3-599e60d86e31/anti-trump-lincoln-project-shared-content-us-later-idd-as-iranian-disinformation

Aquillion, I've provided many sources that mentioned the Iranian disinformation campaign and several that name Lincoln Project, await your response..

Pformenti (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you haven't at all, pal. Most of the above-mentioned sources are highly partisan and unreliable as per WP:Reliable Sources. Apart from that, attempting to present a source as 'Yahoo reporting' is both misleading and unacceptable. The link you provided is another National Review REPOST on Yahoo. Glucken123 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Glucken123 since you repeatedly deleted my posts on this talk page leaving me to go to Wiki admins, since for whatever reason you are watch-dogging this page to whitewash any negative press about Lincoln Project, you should recuse yourself from the discussion as you've already shown to be acting in bad faith as an editor. Since National Review has no consensus and requires attribution I will include the article in the wording. Thank you. Pformenti (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doxxing efforts of Trump's Lawyers

The Lincoln Project recently had their twitter locked due to doxxing lawyers representing Trump in Pennsylvania. They were required by Twitter to delete their tweets to regain access to their account. This activity by the super PAC is worth noting under their "Strategies" section. Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.103.46 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Daily Caller is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statement of fact, and there are plenty of other sources. I'm not asking you to copy and paste the Daily Caller's article. Take the facts and remove the spin. A side question, is this page locked so people can carry water for the Lincoln Project? Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.103.46 (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that sources characterizing this as "doxxing" don't really know the meaning of the word, or haven't done any investigation as to what happened. As the MSN source you cited states: "Notably, both of the attorneys called out in the tweet share their personal information freely. It is contained on the company’s website and in their public court filings. Twitter, however, usually considers sharing such public information a violation of the rules." This seems like non-news to me, just sensationalist fluff about a single event. I have no objection to briefly mentioning it in the Strategies section. But publishing already-public and freely available contact information doesn't constitute doxxing, even if sources call it that. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I have a criticism - the "Lincoln Project" claims "The founders of the Lincoln project have spent over 200 years electing Republicans." - that's from https://lincolnproject.us/team/ - should they modify that page: https://web.archive.org/web/20201208033202/https://lincolnproject.us/team/ (archived at : https://archive.fo/HdNjy if they change it) - the Republican party was founded in 1854. The Republican party has existed for 166 years. This is a blatantly obvious propaganda campaign, and Wikipedia should be ashamed to have promoted this blatantly obvious fraud as fact. How f*ing stupid are you? Can't you do the most basic research? Even these stupid hacks couldn't do the most basic fundamental research, but propagandists often neglect it. They assume you are stupid, and you are, apparently, stupid. You should be very embarrassed but I doubt you're smart enough to be. All these morons commenting on this fraud, and none of you have done any basic, very basic, research. You're all incompetent. You're all incredibly stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2320:9D60:9D21:B521:12CB:6613 (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What change are you proposing to the Wikipedia page?—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the 200 years is a reference to the sum of the experiences of the founders and a common rhetorical device. For example, Charlie Watts, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, and Ron Wood spent over 200 years in the music business, although no individual member of the Rolling Stones is 200 years old.--47.37.50.44 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol riot response

It seems the Lincoln Project ran advertisements attacking Republican senators following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The advertising and statements by the Lincoln Project received quite a bit of reliable-source coverage: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lincoln+project%22+capitol+riots

Perhaps it should be added to their list of ads in this article? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Weaver online harassment

I believe the text below should be added onto the page:

In January 2021, John Weaver responded to a magazne article accusing him of sexual misconduct spanning a period of years, Weaver acknowledged having sent inappropriate sexual messages to multiple young men, for which he apologized.[1] According to The New York Times, Weaver offered young men professional support in exchange for sex; that report also accused him of cultivating a non-sexual online relationship with a 14-year-old boy and then engaging in "sexual banter" with him after his 18th birthday.[2] Speaking to Axios, Weaver said, "The truth is that I'm gay and that I have a wife and two kids who I love. My inability to reconcile those two truths has led to this agonizing place."[3] Following the revelations, The Lincoln Project said "John's statement speaks for itself".[4] It later issued a follow-up describing him as "a predator, a liar, and an abuser", and denouncing his "deplorable and predatory behavior".[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Ziegler, Megan (January 31, 2021). "'Predator, liar and abuser': The Lincoln Project responds to allegations against co-founder John Weaver". WTTG-TV. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
  2. ^ Hakim, Danny (January 31, 2021). "21 Men Accuse Lincoln Project Co-Founder of Online Harassment". The New York Times. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
  3. ^ Markay, Lachlan (January 15, 2021). "John Weaver, former McCain aide, acknowledges "inappropriate" messages". Axios. Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  4. ^ Muhr, Rhuardih (January 18, 2021). "Lincoln Project Co-Founder Comes Out". Metro Weekly. Retrieved January 31, 2021.

Grahaml35 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lincoln Project page already contains the following: In January 2021, 21 men accused co-founder John Weaver of sending unwanted sexual messages, which he admitted. In response, The Lincoln Project posted a statement on Twitter denouncing Weaver as "a predator, a liar, and an abuser" and extending "our deepest sympathies to those targeted by his deplorable and predatory behavior." I believe that is sufficient because this page is about The Lincoln Project, not about John Weaver, who has his own page—as you know, from having copied and pasted the text you propose duplicating here. NedFausa (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with NedFausa. That level of detail you proposed is a good start for Weaver's page, but it's not related to the purpose of the Lincoln Project. What the article currently says conveys that he left and why, and I think the correct level of detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Muboshgu. A short paragraph is enough for this LP article. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa I agree with you. I brought it up in the proposed new section as I thought the section could make it more accessible for users and readers. However, it seems everyone is in agreement. I appreciate the consideration. Grahaml35 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver's overt sexual & unsolicited messages to underage man

About this article "History" paragraph, about the recent January 31st, 2021 controversy, as you know twenty one young men accused Lincoln Project co-founder John Weaver, of harassment. Such as, but not limited to, overtly sexual and unsolicited work related messages. Those men include at least one underage man. I suggest to concisely clarify that the accusation include one underage man. This is significant, because according to the minor law this is illegal. Also the men accusation is that the Lincoln Project co-founder somehow asked men for sex in exchange for job.

How about the draft paragraph below? With notable & reliable source.

In January 2021, 21 men, including one underage man, accused co-founder John Weaver of sending unwanted sexual messages, which he admitted. In response, The Lincoln Project posted a statement on Twitter denouncing Weaver as "a predator, a liar, and an abuser" and extending "our deepest sympathies to those targeted by his deplorable and predatory behavior."[1][2][3][4]
Sources

  1. ^ "Young men accuse Lincoln Project co-founder of harassment". BBC News. 2021-02-01. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
  2. ^ Flood, Brian (2021-02-01). "Lincoln Project disavows co-founder John Weaver after NYT details history of harassment of young men". Fox News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
  3. ^ Hodjat, Arya (2021-01-31). "21 Men Accuse Lincoln Project Co-Founder John Weaver of Sending Unwanted, Sexually Explicit Messages". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2021-02-01.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Astor, Maggie; Hakim, Danny (2021-01-31). "21 Men Accuse Lincoln Project Co-Founder of Online Harassment". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-02-01.

Francewhoa (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcies

I think it's relevant to discuss the primary co-founders Rick Wilson and John Weaver both reaching for personal bankruptcy just before launching the Lincoln Project. DOD veteran advisor Fred Wellman also filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy just before joining the Lincoln Project. I have the bankruptcy records for 2 more prominent LP figures from PACER.

All the co-founders and many of the advisors (like Wellman) are followers of neo-conservative ideology which fell out of favor at the end of George W. Bush's presidency. The bankruptcies are relevant because prior to forming LP, none of the co-founders could find any meaningful political work within official offices either as staffers or as political consultants or Republican Party offices from 2016 onwards.

Lincoln Project's primary stated mission was anti-Trumpism, but given that its leadership and ideological base is only found from one branch of conservatism and it has since launched a podcast and video streaming product to continue delivery; their mission will garner less attention as they seek to revive public interest in neoconservative ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.239.133 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need secondary reliable sources to add information like this, not primary sources like the records you mention, in order to establish that this is noteworthy enough to include and to avoid WP:BLPPRIMARY issues. We would also need a source that draws the conclusion that you do: The bankruptcies are relevant because prior to forming LP, none of the co-founders could find any meaningful political work within official offices either as staffers or as political consultants or Republican Party offices from 2016 onwards. Otherwise this is original research that cannot be included in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Horn's exit

Lincoln Project announced by tweet they accepted Jennifer Horn's resignation after she made certain demands.[1] --P37307 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. This has been added to the article, sourced to The New York Times. NedFausa (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual misconduct scandal

Can someone please update this page with information about the sexual misconduct scandal that has rocked this organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.128.119 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "History" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election

The post-election information has been lacking to the article. I attempted to expand in a neutral way. [2]--P37307 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P37307, I removed it because you duplicated content that is already in the "History" section, and WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS often violate NPOV.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting to say I was going to remove it Muboshgu hadn't, for the same two reasons. If you think the history section needs to be expanded, feel free to add more information in the existing section with sourcing, but "Controversies" sections are rarely the best way to go about it. GorillaWarfare (talk)

News coverage of this article - Not a good look for Wikipedia

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-lincoln-project-edits-john-weaver --rogerd (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerd, thanks for your concern, but we don't pay too much mind to POV outlets like WP:FOXNEWS. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Seems like perhaps this is not a good look for Fox News... it's bizarre to write "The Lincoln Project's Wikipedia page does not mention the sexual misconduct allegations against Weaver until the second-to-last paragraph of its 'History' section" when the section is clearly chronological, and the scare quotes around "vandalism" aren't justified by the article, which makes no mention of the protection being unjustified. Slow news day? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, Fox News won't let the facts get in the way of a good narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afaict, the part in that article that was about WP was pretty ok, factual and not hyperbolic or anything. Sure, the headline has the insinuative claiming 'vandalism', but headlines are headlines. I don't think Fox writes about WP very often for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current tag

@WGFinley: Muboshgu is right, the {{current}} tag is inappropriate for this article. The article is not being heavily edited, and the heavy news coverage is already beginning to diminish. I could have maybe seen the argument for including it when the news about Weaver first broke, but not now. Note the template documentation: "As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news). It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day; occasionally longer." GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being heavily edited in large part to the page being protected. I added the tag looking to remove the protection but wanted to discuss it with the protecting admin first. A cursory search of article show a large number from reputable sources in the past two days alone. I'm not seeing the justification for protecting this page and the tag is there to address the influx of editing that could occur from removing the protection while the subject is in the news. --WGFinley (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the page begins to be heavily edited it could be added, but it should not be added preemptively. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WGFinley, the justification of page protection is in all of the vandalism and disruptive editing. Three other administrators protected this article before I ever did, and the vandalism and disruptive editing returned after all three automatic unprotections. Might as well suggest that the smoke detectors in your house are unnecessary because they're not currently detecting any smoke. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is intended for articles that are suffering from a high level of vandalism or disruptive editing. I'm not seeing that on this article. Happy to keep an eye on it and reinstate protection if it merits it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

I've removed protection from this page and added the CURRENT tag to reflect the topic of this article is the subject to a large amount of current news coverage and the editing on the page will be in flux. I'm happy to discuss this but as someone completely involved in this article previously I'm just not seeing a disruptive editing history here to justify the protection. --WGFinley (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @WGFinley: I see you also have just removed the protection from this page. Please note the policy: Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests may be made at Requests for unprotection. Please reinstate the protection until you discuss this with Muboshgu. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did and did discuss it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with unprotection but am not looking for a WP:MOPFIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah, I missed the part where Muboshgu agreed to trialing the unprotection. I don't think it's wise given the major potential for BLPvios and continuance of POV-pushing, but as long as you're monitoring it closely and Muboshgu has agreed, I won't stand in the way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, I did not agree to unprotection. Finley did it anyway, despite my attempts to explain why it's there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From your talk page: "I think removing protection is a mistake, but if you want to go ahead and try it, I ask that you be ready to reaffirm it when vandalism resumes."[4] I'd ask that both of you look at your edit history on this article and recognize that you are both clearly WP:INVOLVED and shouldn't be taking admin-level actions on this article. I've had zero involvement on this article and topic, I'd encourage you to engage a bit more with editors that have been trying to contribute here. --WGFinley (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to where I have taken any administrative action with respect to this page. I see you have baselessly insinuated I am violating WP:INVOLVED both here and on Muboshgu's talk page (which I am just now catching up on--there was a typo in my username so the ping didn't work).
I'd encourage you to engage a bit more with editors that have been trying to contribute here. The talk page will show both Muboshgu and I have been doing this, so this is a bizarre thing to say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have quoted Muboshgu, but neglected to quote his following comment: "I'm okay with oversight of my admin actions, but I am strongly against unprotecting that page." Do you intend to reinstate the protection so this can be discussed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WGFinley, in my very next edit, after I checked the edit history where you said that I had reprotected the page after one edit of vandalism and I found that it had been four, I said I'm okay with oversight of my admin actions, but I am strongly against unprotecting that page. I have become increasingly concerned with your behavior after that. This edit summary shows the same rationale I often see from POV warriors, who say things like "I'm reinstating my change, discuss on talk" in the midst of an edit war, which is contrary to the spirit of WP:BRD. Should we go to WP:AN/I? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did (Moboshgu has), I said you shouldn't be. In reviewing the edit history of this article I've noted you've both been pretty resistant to some changes that other editors want to make and removed sourced sections they've added. I'm not saying you're not engaging with them, I'm saying it appears more engagement is needed to bring in other views. --WGFinley (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bring me into it? I am very aware of WP:INVOLVED. Muboshgu's recent edits to this article have been to revert obvious vandalism: [5], [6] and do not constitute involvement in my view. His engagement on the talk page occurred after his protection of the page, and he has not taken admin action on this page since becoming involved there.
As for being "resistant", I think you will see that my comments here are based in policies and guidelines. Not wanting to add original research and sources based entirely on primary sources is not improper resistance to "other views", it's ensuring this article is aligned with policy.
As for there not being vandalism to this page, do you mean since the protection on 10 January? Of course there hasn't been, because it's been protected. Prior to the protection, there was plenty of vandalism immediately after the previous protection expired, warranting Muboshgu's action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, removing page protection isn't edit warring. Part of my reason is that I'm not seeing a level of activity that merits protection. The other is that as an involved admin you shouldn't be making that determination. I'm not sure why I'm being likened to a POV warrior, I'm not getting involved in the editing of this article, I'm getting involved with how the article is being handled administratively. As far as WP:AN/I, if that's where you would desire to take this I'll respond there. --WGFinley (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, because you overrode my removal of the template in a fashion that could be the start of an edit war, if I were to keep engaging, and because like I said, your edit summary is almost word for word the edit summary I see over and over again from POV warriors. The current template is still inappropriate given the template documentation. Considering you won't acknowledge that, or that your initial post on my talk page was based on an inaccuracy, or all of the vandalism and disruptive editing evident in the article history and talk page, I'm wondering why you have taken an interest in this page. If it's motivated by one bad Fox News article, I think that's questionable judgment. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a tag, especially the CURRENT tag is purely administrative. I recognize you don't agree but, as I've stated, and I would hope you would concede, you are pretty involved in this article and shouldn't be taking administrative actions on it. No, you don't have to have a mop to add a tag but when an uninvolved admin comes in and adds a tag I think you'd at least discuss it some before reverting. --WGFinley (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it's obvious misuse of the tag, as Muboshgu, myself, and now Praxidicae have all agreed, I don't think it's inappropriate to revert. And it's certainly not an admin action (or a violation of WP:INVOLVED) to remove a {{current}} tag. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New NYT expose

Published 8 March 2021; also The Nation today, for any interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racial hoax edit reverted

Hello, I'm curious to know what people think of including a mention of the stunt pulled by The Lincoln Project in Virginia. Editor @Muboshgu: instantly reverted my well-sourced edit calling it "a small hoax", despite coverage in extensive WP:RS like the Associated Press[7], the Washington Post[8], RealClearPolitics[9], VICE[10], Mediaite [11] and Perennial sources the National Review[12] and Newsweek [13]. The stunt drew condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum and involved a journalist, which is pretty noteworthy. Muboshgu claimed it was WP:UNDUE when it was a fairly small edit, which could have been trimmed down if needed. --Loganmac (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think your edit was fine, and undid Muboshgu's reverting of your addition. Total random nerd (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for removal was stated clearly by Muboshgu: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It's true that a number of news sources have covered this event, but it just happened. We'll have to wait to see whether people keep discussing it to know whether the event has encyclopedic value. Generalrelative (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Total random nerd, next time, follow WP:BRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph was way too long and poorly written. We cannot use National Review, RealClearPolitics, Newsweek, or Mediaite for something like this (the first two are not RS; the other two are borderline at best). On the other hand, the AP and Vice sources (both of which call it a "stunt" and not a "hoax," which is something different), seem usable. [The piece in the Washington Post is just a republished AP article.] I would propose the following:

In October 2021, a group of five people carrying tiki-torches and dressed like the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, appeared in front of the campaign bus of Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor of Virginia in the 2021 election.[1][2] The Lincoln Project called the stunt "a demonstration" designed to highlight "Youngkin's continued failure to denounce Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides.'"[3][2] The stunt was criticized by Youngkin's campaign, as well as by the campaign of his rival Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe (which condemned the stunt as ""disgusting and distasteful"), and the Virginia Democratic Party.[2][1] Democratic delegate Sally L. Hudson also criticized the Lincoln Project, tweeting that "Charlottesville is not a prop."[2][1]

References

  1. ^ a b c Joseph, Cameron. "Lincoln Project Posed as Charlottesville White Supremacists at GOP Event". VICE. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  2. ^ a b c d "Anti-Trump group takes credit for Virginia tiki torch stunt". AP NEWS. 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  3. ^ "The Lincoln Project: Statement from the Lincoln Project". The Lincoln Project. 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
--Neutralitytalk 00:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that this is story is going to last beyond the 24 hour news cycle, let alone meet the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned National Review and Newsweek are perennial, that's the reason I didn't use them as sources. Regarding RealClearPolitics, WP:RSP reads "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability." It is already used extensively on WP, with hundreds of articles using it as source.[14] Muboshgu is misusing WP:NOTNEWS, as we do indeed cover events that are recent. I think a stunt that has been condemned by all sides (WP:DIVERSE), that involves the Unite the Right rally where people died, racial tensions, a journalist, party operatives, an election, etc. is noteworthy. Please read WP:NEWSEVENT, which clearly states "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Loganmac (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the argument that the WaPo source is a repeat of AP, WaPo has already done their own coverage of the stunt here Loganmac (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, recent does not mean non-notable. It being a minor event with no repercussions beyond some tweets condemning it does make it non-notable, and that is my contention here. This is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's been more than tweets condemning. There's been responses from academics Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said that if the political stunt was intended to help McAuliffe, it took things too far.[15], political parties The Democratic Party of Virginia, along with its coordinated partners and its affiliates, did not have any role today in the events that happened outside of the Youngkin campaign bus stop today.[16], journalists, politicians[17], etc. Please read WP:RECENTISM which you linked But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be—and are—improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated. and WP:WIP. Killing an edit only on the grounds of it being recent is literally what WP:NEWSEVENT says not to do. --Loganmac (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I'm not against including it only on the grounds of it being recent. I'm objecting to it because it's insignificant, and I see that the WP:BREAKING news style addition is a case of WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Insignificant" is nowhere near the word I would use for what happened. It's notable, and prominent people have commented on it. It deserves to be recorded, especially when reliable sources have written about it. Wertwert55 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Project seems to be getting into some bizarre stuff lately. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this thread with interest (I'm the original author of this article, so I keep an eye on it). Here's my suggestion: leave it out for now. Come back in 6 months and see if the media is still talking about it.
The size of this article has been growing steadily. The original version on WP:DYK was 483 words of readable prose. Now it's 3362 words. Sure, more has happened since then, but not enough to justify an 8x expansion. I'm also looking at page views over time. If anything, interest in this topic has fallen to almost nothing over the past 6 months, which also suggests to me that continued growth in article size is due more to people wanting to cover every tidbit that comes out rather than curate the most significant events. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The size of this article should have nothing to do with wether or not we include this. If the article is too long, how about we remove the two long paragraphs on Weaver's sexual misconduct case, which is only tangentially related to the subject, as well as the third paragraph stating that they "prepared to file a laawsuit" but fails to provide any follow up. As for this stunt, it is a form of activism, not a hoax. The attempt to frame this as them trying to maliciously mislead the public into thinking that Youngkin is supported by why supremacists is absurd, because 1) that is known as fact, and 2) that's the very thing the demonstration was meant to condemn. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SERIOUSLY??!!?? It's just activism? And Youngkin is somehow responsible for what white supremacists (which ones? who are you talking about?) do with their votes? Nope, no bias THERE174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend a rewording to make it less ambiguous what the purpose of this demonstration was. Something along these lines:

In October 2021, the Lincoln Project organized a demonstration in front of the campaign bus of Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor of Virginia in the 2021 election. A group of five people and dressed up like the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, carrying tiki-torches, to highlight "Youngkin's continued failure to denounce Donald Trump's 'very fine people on both sides'" comment.

I see no reason to include the "criticism by Youngkin's campaign, because... well, of course they will dislike it. If criticism is to be included, it needs to come from a non-partisan source. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SERIOUSLY? You don't see reason to mention that the campaign these losers were masquerading as part of issued a denial that it was them and then denounced it?174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MANDY applies. If someone is accused of something bad, of course they will deny it. It's not worthy of mention. That being said, them denying that the protesters were with them is irrelevant, because the protesters never pretended to be with Youngkin. They were there to make a statement, criticising Youngkin's failure to denounce Trump's commnets that are sympathetic to white supremacists. The idea that they were there to deliberately mislead the public and the media into thinking white supremacists are attending Youngkin's rally, is a serious accusation and you will need reliable sources before you can even consider suggesting something like this. Unfortunately for you, no such sources exist. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

2600:2B00:6A62:A100:2DCF:B2A0:764:385 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lincoln Project is a Far-Left and neo-communist organization. They spread political division in the United States and have called for violence. They have endorsed radical left candidates and oppose moderate Republicans. They support far left and progressive liberals.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

defeat conservative candidates

The article states that the purpose of the Lincoln project is to defeat conservative candidates. This seems based on the equation of trumpism with republicans with conservative. Which is quite absurd. The article linked as source contains no such claim, on the contrary it states that this is not about left/right or conservative/liberals. The stated goal of the Lincoln project (according to their website) is to preserve democracy.

The website furthermore says: "The Lincoln Project launched with two stated objectives. The first was to defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box. The second was to ensure Trumpism failed alongside him."

By common definitions of conservatism Trumpism is not conservative. Rebach (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lincoln_Project&oldid=1229965308"