Talk:Craig Cobb

NPOV

I am Craig Cobb. I corrected dates, factual errors etc on the page someone created about me. I have read that Wikipedia allows (but discourages) personages from editing their own pages. Wikipedia admin NawlinWiki just deleted every single edit I had made, including a photo of myself which I owned--it is from my own broadcast of Deprogram, and uploaded to Wikipedia Commons--yet admin NawlinWiki pugnaciously reinstated many factual errors into the piece about me. He/She literally deleted my entire entry (which I have saved, of course). This is gratutious railroading against my religious freedom as a Creator by an apparent coterie of editors (above) determined to have it their way, and the facts be darned. It is also likely legally actionable. I respectfully request that my version be examined by a group of less "agenda-izing" editors and reinstated, at least where they deem facts appropo, and that a "this page is in dispute" THEN be put at the top. Unlike Mr./Ms. NawlinWiki, I am Craig Cobb, not hiding behind a handle, and I will gladly show you documentary proof and/or speak with any of you on video Skype to prove my point. I can also can and am completely willing and do offer to show documents substantiating my edits. Thank You for your professional considerations. CraigcobbcreativitypractitionerCraigcobbcreativitypractitioner (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The above comments regarding NawlinWiki violate WP: NPA and WP: NLT. Perhaps they should be deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons are to be handled according to wikipedia guidelines[1]. Otherwise it can be interpreted as an Attack Page[[2]]. Disagree with the use of the pejorative 'white supremacist' [3]--Wittsun (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Using Lindstedt & Maynard as References

Lindstedt's wikipage was recently deleted: "Known child molesting, mentally ill Christian Identity politician, who has yet to win even 20% of the vote in any election"[4]. Curt Maynard was involved in a murder-suicide.[5]--Wittsun (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I found these photos of Craig Cobb: [6]. Would it be possible to use them in the article? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner Revisions

I have reviewed the revisions by Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner and believe some of these (statements of fact regarding dates, names and places) would be of great aid to the article if we can find reliable published third party source material: from the particulars of his military service to his earlier time in Canada to the longer list of countries to which Mr. Cobb has expressed a desire to emigrate to.

Other revisions, however interesting, regarding Mr. Cobb’s grandfather and the Estonian deportation trial, for example, contain original research and also read more like personal memoir.

Also the statements elaborating upon Creativity or assertions regarding Samuel Bronfman, Rosa Parks and others belong in articles pertaining to their respective subjects. The details regarding the funding and ownership of Podblanc should be in the Podblanc article if any sources can be found.

I think expansion of the article should focus on providing more detail of the content of Mr. Cobb’s broadcasts, a full list of his disruptions, his participation in Goyfire, and mention of his views regarding the McVeigh case. All assuming sources can be located.

The photograph uploaded by Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner should be included but Mr. Cobb himself will have to authorize its use. Maybe someone can assist with that. The legal forms are a bit beyond my comprehension.

Please note that as the creator of the page I took great care to review all the published sources I could find and to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I avoided calling Mr. Cobb a neo-Nazi even though he has worked closely with them on a variety of projects, attended their events, posed in photographs with them, and so forth. The article has not been included in the neo-Nazi category either.

Sh.byrn (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We can say he has been called a neo-Nazi in the article at [7]. The article should perhaps his membership of the white supremacist World Church of the Creator explicit. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun Edits of 30 June 2010

I have reverted the edit by Wittsun, a user who has been banned from editing racism-related topics on Wikipedia. The edit removed criticism of Cobb by Lindstedt and Maynard claiming they are not credible sources. However they are being cited not as sources of facts about Cobb but as critics from within the supremicist movement. I have also removed Wittsun's supurious flag about cleanup as there is no argument to support this action on the talk page. Sh.byrn (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You were probably correct in reverting the edits, although I don't think topic-bans apply retroactively. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted because...

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it meets basic notability criteria:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The article currently cites about 30 different reliable published secondary sources, which are intellectually independent of each other. Most of the sources are mainstream news reporting (such as The Vancouver Sun and NBC Montana) which are independent of the subject.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk show DNA test reliability.

I really think people should read this before trying to pass these DNA tests off as solid facts, yes it should be mentioned in the article that Cobb may be 14% Sub-Saharan African based off a talk show DNA test, but the reliability of those has been question, and I fear that some people with agenda are not respecting wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9912822/DNA-ancestry-tests-branded-meaningless.html

173.171.83.140 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That telegraph article seems to be dealing with generations way further back. 14% Sub-Saharan African lineage is not a tiny amount. And don't be so bitter, we're all Africans anyway... :) (I'm still laughing at this story, and the guys total lack of intelligent response. Classic). --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to be neutral here, so I think you should understand that before accusing me of being "bitter". 173.171.83.140 (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, my comment wasn't really aimed at anyone in particular.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit shocked, as someone who used to edit frequently when I was a few years younger, with the complete absence of neutrality being displayed here. As the IP above noted, the reliability of these ancestry tests is dubious at best. Stating outright that "he is 14% African-American" (incidentally, this is not even what the test claimed, genetic sub-saharan african ancestry is not the same thing as "african-american" ancestry, indicating that the user who added this to the article is a lazy editor) when the test itself is questionable and then making a value judgement with that statement (he is a white supremacist despite being 14% African-American) is grossly inappropriate. I would further argue that something should be added to the paragraph in the Leith, North Dakota section discussing the talk show incident stating to the effect that the validity of such tests is in question even beyond Cobb's own statements in the interest of neutrality. Washablemarker (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

N Subject to consensus, something could be added about that talk show incident, but you need to suggest some text and to provide a reliable source. For the rest, Edit semi-protected requests exist to enable people to request specific edits, not for general comments. You are welcome to comment on this talk page to help build a consensus. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus on a little-watched page where most of the editors seem heavily biased is rather silly, especially given that it's a clear-cut case of false and potentially libelous information on a BLP. Deleting the "despite being 14% African-American", which is both verifiably false ("African-American" ancestry was not what was tested for) and blatantly non-neutral is pretty clear-cut, and I would say that adding "and the validity of current genetic ancestry tests is in question", citing the article the IP linked, is also clear-cut per NPOV. Washablemarker (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting the removal of false and potentially libelous information on a BLP by deleting the outright false and non-neutral "despite being 14% African-American" from the first line of the article, and I request adding "and the validity of current genetic ancestry tests is in question", citing this, to the 'Cobb dismissed the results as "statistical noise" and "short science".' sentence right before where the period currently is per NPOV. Washablemarker (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right about "African-American". The source said Sub-Saharan African. Editors have now replaced it with that. The relevance of that Telegraph source to the matter at hand has been questioned above, and I think it advisable to gain consensus on its relevance before including it. Note that I am not presuming to close that issue (I have no power to, and anyway I have no opinion on it), merely calling for it to be discussed further. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA tests are a lot more accurate than people give them credit for. My ex-wife used to do DNA testing to identify genetic diseases, and she found out far more about people than they really wanted anyone to know. With some more analysis, scientists could determine which tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa Cobb's ancestors came from, plus what areas of Europe his European ancestors came from, plus what route his paleolithic ancestors took to get from Africa to Europe and where they took refuge from the glaciers during the last ice age. DNA includes a complete set of blueprints for a human being, and it doesn't lie. You can deny a rape, but not when a DNA test confirms it. (58% of "African Americans" are at least 1/8 European in origin)

The reason they said "Sub-Saharan Africa" is that the split between the original homo sapiens population in Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world occurred around 50,000 years ago, when the great homo sapiens exodus from Africa began. North Africans and everyone else in the world are a distinct subset different from Sub-Saharan Africans, who have most of the human race's genetic variation. Cobb is white because he carries the definitive European white-skin gene - but that mutation only appeared about 9,000 years ago, although 98% of Northern Europeans carry it today. Prior to that time, Europeans were much darker than they are now. If you want an example of what Europeans were originally like, go to Ireland and find some Black Irish. I know a few of them, and "black" is not a figure of speech. They are descended from the original Irish but haven't inherited the white skin mutation yet. Color is only skin deep and doesn't reliably indicate ancestry.

So, to summarize, it's obvious that some of Cobb's ancestors made their way to America on the slave ships, not the Mayflower. If he's 14% African, then at least 2 of his 8 great-grandparents would have been classified as "negro" under the Jim Crow laws many of the Southern states had in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and Cobb himself would be classified as "negro" under some of those laws. This is all very relevant to this article since he is a "white" supremacist. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA Test Results Section

I recommend that the information about the DNA test results be moved out of the "Leith, North Dakota" section, and placed into a section heading of its own within the Biography: "DNA Test Results Suggesting African Heritage". It is not directly related to his activities in Leith, North Dakota. If legitimate sources can be quoted questioning the reliability of the test results, they should be cited. But he did agree to the tests, these results are public and have gone "viral", and given his views they are a significant aspect of his biography. 69.109.120.162 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The only reason Goddard offered to give him the tests is because he was appearing on her show to discuss his activities in Leith. So it's not true that the two subjects are unrelated. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept that critique. However, this is now a significant part of his biography meriting distinct mention. The revelation has spread widely through news outlets and the web. It will and does significantly impact people's view of him. It cannot be considered a minor detail.

By all means, keep the mention of the fact that he challenges the conclusion, and why. But his genealogy isn't something that he is doing in Leith, it's something that he is (or is not). 69.109.120.162 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the bio needs to be edited to include the genetic testing result

Mr. Cobb submitted a DNA sample to the "Trisha Goddard" talk show and received genetic testing results back during a recent taping that demonstrate that he is 14% Sub-Saharan African. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-white-supremacist-dna-20131112,0,7467682.story#axzz2ke4L78Fl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_svnsF5OLbI

162.232.100.65 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Most studies coming from the US are.showing that their white population is mixed.As a scientist(English is not my language) 14% does not prove that your great grandparent was a black person.DNA test is not like math.You can have african ancestry and look white and be able to have white children.You can even marry a white person who also have 14%and still have white children.Is hard to explain that is why study years.They are many Europeans who still have african,arab or asian ancestry( wars and invasions by the Moors,srabs,mongoloids) who have a 15% of this mixes in their DNA and that happen long before America was discover.Most studies are being made for cancer and health issue.White Europeans(depending of the region and country) tend to show a different mixed than white americans.That help explain what deseases made be more common in some population and what we can do to decrease the chances to get them.That is the reason why this studies are being made. Is funny how people are afraid of DNA and if they do not likr the results then is fake.I bet that the reason she did it is because studies made for health research are showing that most white population in the US have native american,african or jewish ancestry.She read the studies made for cancer research and she knew he had a high probability of finding one of the three.She just find black.Cientifica1 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Cientifica1

Have those test results been independently confirmed?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The LATimes says "Cobb told the Bismarck Tribune on Monday that he doubted the validity of the test and said he planned to take up to three more DNA tests and publish the results." Might be worth adding that. I may do it today. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This[8] is even better. Looks like Cobb is at least hedging his bets - he's going to continue on even if they are correct, and thinks the test might explain why he hates Blacks. I'll leave this for someone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC

I b

 Note: Per our policy about biographies of living persons, I modified the section header to be less defamatory. There is a discussion above about how to include this information. It seems contentious and that means it would be better to reach a consensus on how to add this rather than using an edit request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Celestra's take on this, and would like to suggest the following approach: we shouldn't at this stage claim that the DNA test proves anything, but we can state that newspapers have reported that the test took place; that Goddard stated that the result of the test indicated the 86/14% split; that Cobb has challenged the validity of the test; and that Cobb has said that he intends to take further DNA tests and to make the results public. The RSs support these, I think. --Stfg (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

″Sub-Saharan African″ is a rather general term. The Lemba people of southern Africa have some Jewish ancestry. People in the Horn of Africa surely have very different ancestry to those in West and Central Africa, from where most African-Americans originated.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Are there any fair-use photos of Cobb available? He's getting so much attention it'd probably be worth having a photo of him in the article. I'm tempted to say we should use (John Glover as Lionel Luthor, from Smallville), because Cobb looks almost EXACTLY like that guy....although I know we can't do that. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wanted in Canada

Something needs to be said about his Canadian arrest and his fugitive status there. It seems he updated his Podblanc site while at a public library in Canada, and since there is racist content being posted on his site, that makes him a hate criminal in the eyes of Canada.72.11.53.145 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)